- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
EU court to fine Google €4.1 billion for anti-competitive practices
![EU court to fine Google €4.1 billion for anti-competitive practices EU court to fine Google €4.1 billion for anti-competitive practices](https://www.legaleraonline.com/h-upload/2022/09/17/796503-european-union.webp)
EU court to fine Google €4.1 billion for anti-competitive practices A European Union court upheld the decision of the European Commission decision that Google was engaged in anti-competitive practices and as a result violated European Union competition rules. The General Court however, lowered the previously imposed €4.3 billion fine to €4.1 billion. The EC fined Google in 2018...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to ![Legal Era](/images/logo.png)
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
EU court to fine Google €4.1 billion for anti-competitive practices
A European Union court upheld the decision of the European Commission decision that Google was engaged in anti-competitive practices and as a result violated European Union competition rules. The General Court however, lowered the previously imposed €4.3 billion fine to €4.1 billion.
The EC fined Google in 2018 for anti-competitive practices in violation of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU and Article 54 of the European Economic Arena Agreement. A lower court upheld the fine of €4.3 billion against Google. Google appealed the decision.
On appeal, the General Court found that Google violated anti-competition rules, in agreement with the lower court's decision. The case was largely focused on Google's business practices regarding its Android operating system. According to the EC, approximately 80% of all smart mobile devices used in Europe in 2018 were Androids. The EC claimed Google imposed contractual restrictions which promoted Google's dominant position in the market. These restrictions included: restrictions requiring original equipment manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Chrome to receive a license to use its app store; restrictions in anti-fragmentation agreements with manufacturers; and restrictions that shared advertising revenue with manufacturers and operators that agreed to not pre-install a competing search service.
Although Google's appeal was largely dismissed, the Court however agreed to lower the fine amount on the basis of the recalculations of the ad revenue sharing agreement restrictions.
Google is entitled to appeal this decision to the EU Court of Justice.