Google advertising monopoly fined the EU 2.95 billion euros!

The European Commission fined Google 2,950 million euros (approximately 24,654 million yuan) for “abuse of its dominant position in the field of advertising technology”. In the bulletin, the European Commission charged Google with allegedly engaging in anti-competitive behaviour, which led to increased costs for advertisers and publishers and could eventually be passed on to consumers.

In its announcement, the European Commission stated that, through this decision, it would work to ensure that the digital market established a virtuous competition based on fair terms. This is not the first time that the European Commission has found that Google abuses dominance in different digital markets to the detriment of European consumers.

The European Commission stated: “In this case, Google abused its dominant position in the bilateral market of the advertising technology supply chain. Digital advertising is the backbone of the online economy and provides financial support for the online content and services on which we rely on daily. Google controls many of the important tools that the industry needs to operate.”

“Google harms competitors, advertisers and publishers by favouring its own online advertising technology services. Its unlawful actions have led to higher marketing costs for advertisers, which may eventually be passed on to European consumers in the form of higher prices for products and services. Google’s strategy also reduces publishers’ income, which may lead to a decline in the quality of services and an increase in consumer subscription costs.”

“So Google abuse has a negative impact on the daily use of the Internet by all European citizens. As this is a violation of EU competition rules, Google is ordered to pay a fine of Euro2.85 billion. In accordance with established practice, we have increased the fine due to Google ‘ s third violation of competition rules. However, fines alone are not sufficient to effectively address market problems and protect consumers. We therefore also order Google to cease its illegal activities and to eliminate its inherent conflict of interest in the advertising technology industry.”

The European Commission requested Google to submit within 60 days a reorganization programme to stop anti-competitive behaviour. “In the absence of a viable plan, the Commission will impose appropriate relief measures”, the European Commission stressed in its statement: “The only effective way for Google to end conflicts of interest at this stage seems to be to take structural remedial measures, such as the sale of part of the advertising technology. This is both necessary and proportionate for the effective cessation of violations.”

The European Commission launched a survey of Google Advertising Technology in June 2021 and proposed a break-up possibility in 2023. Similarly, the United States Department of Justice, after finding Google to be in violation of the antimonopoly law, required federal judges to separate their advertising technology.

“The illegal practices of Google continue for more than a decade, affecting the European Economic Area. But the conduct involved in this decision has a global dimension,” the European Commission added, “the United States Federal Court recently supported the Department of Justice’s main claim to Google prosecution, which is highly consistent with our decision. The United States Federal Court will also hear the remedy that Google should take. There is therefore room to ensure that Google implements effective remedies on both sides of the Atlantic to resolve its inherent conflict of interest in the operation. It is in the interests of all parties to reach a joint outcome, including Google itself and its global citizens.”

Lee Anne Malholan, Vice-President of Google Global Regulation, responded that the decision on its advertising technical services was “wrong” and that the company planned to appeal. “This unreasonable fine and the change in its requirements will cause harm to thousands of European enterprises by reducing their profitability”, Marholand states.