EU slaps Google with €2.95 billion fine — a test of whether Europe can actually tame Big Tech
BRUSSELS — In a decisive move that underscores Europe’s determination to reshape the digital economy, regulators on Friday fined Google €2.95 billion ($3.5 billion), ruling that the U.S. search giant abused its dominance in online advertising by steering business to its own services and squeezing rivals, publishers and advertisers.
- Advertisement -
The European Commission said the practice — centered on Google’s AdX exchange and DFP ad server — amounted to “self‑preferencing” that tilted an already complex advertising supply chain in Google’s favor. The decision, the Commission added, may require structural remedies if Google cannot propose fixes within 60 days that restore fair competition.
What the ruling means in practice
Ad technology is the plumbing of the internet. Advertisers buy space programmatically through exchanges and ad servers, and publishers rely on that revenue to pay journalists, host cultural content and keep their sites running. Regulators concluded that Google’s control over multiple links in that chain let it divert bids and inventory to its own services and extract fees that ultimately raised costs for advertisers and depressed income for publishers.
“The decision finds that Google abused its dominant position by favouring Google’s ad tech services at the expense of other ad tech providers,” the Commission said in a statement, ordering the company to stop the practices and remove conflicts of interest embedded in its platforms.
Google swiftly rejected the finding and said it would appeal. “It imposes an unjustified fine and requires changes that will hurt thousands of European businesses by making it harder for them to make money,” Lee‑Anne Mulholland, the company’s global head of regulatory affairs, said on Friday.
Politics, trade and transatlantic friction
The decision prompted an immediate political flare‑up. Former U.S. President Donald Trump denounced the fine on his platform, calling it “very unfair” and framing the action as an attack on American workers and innovation. His comments reflect a growing diplomatic sensitivity in Washington about EU rules aimed at U.S. tech champions.
But Brussels has been explicit: repeated fines and behavioral commitments have not been enough to stop what regulators call entrenched dominance. Since 2017, Google has been hit with several multibillion‑euro penalties in different cases — a pattern that has helped push EU policymakers toward tougher, preventive rules such as the Digital Markets Act, which targets the market power of platform gatekeepers.
Why structural remedies are back on the table
For investigators, the dizzying array of past fines and settlements created a sober lesson: penalties alone did not fix the ecosystem. The Commission said that, at this stage, a structural remedy — such as divestment of parts of Google’s adtech business — could be the only effective solution to eliminate the conflict of interest.
That is a significant escalation. Breaking up or forcing sales of digital assets is politically fraught and legally complicated, but regulators say it may be necessary when conduct is baked into the architecture of a dominant firm. The Commission will first review any proposals Google offers to address the problem.
Winners, losers and the hidden costs
Who stands to gain or lose? Small publishers and local newsrooms are often portrayed as the primary victims when ad markets consolidate. With programmatic advertising being a vital revenue source, publishers have faced softening income and greater dependence on platforms. The Commission’s decision explicitly warns that Google’s conduct likely reduced publishers’ revenues and increased costs for advertisers — effects that can ripple to consumers in higher prices or reduced local coverage.
Advertisers, meanwhile, complain about opaque fees and opaque buying paths. If the ruling provokes more transparent marketplaces, some brands could win lower costs; the companies that built businesses on selling intermediation and data may feel the pain.
Where this fits in the global trend
Europe is not alone in rethinking Big Tech. Regulators from Washington to Seoul and Canberra have ramped up scrutiny of dominant platforms. But Europe’s approach has been distinctive for its combination of large fines, tighter ex ante rules and willingness to contemplate structural fixes.
The case also raises broader questions: Will tougher regulation spur a more diverse digital ecosystem, or simply slow innovation? Can regulators realistically disentangle services built over a decade of integration without harming the very users and small firms they aim to protect?
For consumers, the near‑term effects will be muted; the fine itself is a financial penalty and any major structural change would take months or years. But the symbolic impact is immediate. The message from Brussels is that dominance in digital markets cannot be self‑reinforcing forever.
Looking ahead
Google has 60 days to propose remedies. If the company’s fixes are judged insufficient, the Commission has warned it could pursue more far‑reaching steps. Either way, this decision signals a turning point: European regulators are prepared to move beyond repeated fines toward interventions that could reshape the architecture of the internet’s advertising market.
For policy makers, executives and the journalists who rely on ad revenues to fund their work, the ruling opens a fraught transition. Will the internet become less concentrated and more competitive? Or will new problems emerge as platforms are forced to reconfigure their businesses?
As the dust settles in Brussels, the answers will matter not only to Silicon Valley and the European Commission, but to anyone who clicks on the news, watches free video, or runs a small site hoping to be paid for the work they publish.
By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
