Google’s appeal against EU record £3.8bn fine begins – how did we get here?
Three years after receiving a record fine from the European Commission alongside an order to stop abusing its control of the Android operating system, Google is set to have its day in court.
Back in 2018 the company was fined €4.34bn (£3.8bn) for forcing phone makers to pre-install apps including Google Search and Chrome to the exclusion of other search engines and web browsers.
The fine was a fraction of the €116bn (£99bn) parent company Alphabet recorded in revenues that year, but the real cost to the company was the threat to its future income if smartphones landed in consumers’ hands without Google apps already installed.
Google’s five-day appeal against the decision is being heard at European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, where the company hopes to have the Commission’s decision annulled in its entirety.
A failure to do so could completely reshape the smartphone landscape, but other challenges targeting Google inside the US pose a far more significant risk to the company and could lead to the search giant being broken up into several smaller businesses.
Google’s appeal will be heard in Luxembourg from Monday
Breaking up monopolies
While there are an over-abundance of comparisons between the oil industry of the late 19th century and the tech industry of today, the slow movement of regulators is one of the most striking similarities.
It was in 1890 that US Congress passed a law to tackle the monopolies which had sprung up over the preceding half century, but it took more than three decades for that law to be used to break up Standard Oil, a company which by 1904 controlled more than 90% of oil production in America.
Standard Oil’s business excelled due to its innovations in refining oil, but also because the company had rapaciously acquired rivals and used its commercial heft to strike deals with railroad companies (themselves a target for early antitrust action) at discounted rates which the remaining oil businesses could not compete with.
In a landmark ruling in 1911, the US Supreme Court upheld that Standard Oil was an illegal monopoly and ordered it to be broken up into 34 independent companies. Though that power is not available to the European Commission, there is a growing movement in the US calling for similar actions to be taken against tech giants whom some believe are guilty of the same anticompetitive practices.
Standard Oil controlled more than 90% of US oil production at its height
Modern antitrust law
Google is a very different company to Standard Oil, but the alleged unfairness of its practices – using its control of Android to force phone manufacturers who want to include the Google Play app store on their phones to also pre-install Google Search and Chrome – follows the same model of undermining rivals.
The investigation into Google coercing phone manufacturers formally began in 2015, although the Commission made its first enquiries about the company’s practices in 2013 when an association of Google’s rivals calling itself FairSearch lodged a complaint against its business practices.
The ruling came three years later in 2018 and now, three years later, Google’s appeal has reached the European Court of Justice. Thomas Vinje, counsel to FairSearch and partner at law firm Clifford Chance, told Sky News he expected there could be another appeal after the hearing in Luxembourg.
“Antitrust enforcement is not, on its own at least, sufficiently robust, sufficiently effective, to be able to address these really extraordinary concerns. I’m not sure the world has ever faced a situation where there is such a concentration of power in such a central element of today’s economy, and antitrust law is not up to the task,” he said.
“That is largely because they’re complex cases,” Mr Vinje explained.
“They’re more complex than rail roads or oil distribution – I’m not saying those are simple – but the issues faced in Big Tech today are a hell of a lot more complicated. So there is a hell of a lot more room for obfuscation… and dragging things out.
“So by virtue of the completely appropriate rights that defendants have in these cases, the cases just take too long.”
The Commission accused Google of attempting to cement the dominance of Google Search
What is Google’s response and appeal?
Google, which claims the most popular search term on rival search engines such as Bing is the word “Google” itself and which controls more than 90% of the market for web searches, disputes the Commission’s arguments about its dominance, although that won’t feature prominently in its arguments next week.
In a news briefing ahead of the hearing, the company explained to journalists that it believes a lot has changed in the years since the Commission issued its decision.
Key to Google’s appeal is the argument that its control ensures Android is a platform which can run across millions of smart devices made by different manufacturers, increasing the economic benefits for developers – including rival web browser makers such as Opera, which is supporting Google’s appeal – and ultimately consumers.
Google will note that a revenue sharing agreement it had with phone manufacturers and mobile network operators, cited as an illegal contractual restriction by the Commission, ended in 2014.
The company also strongly disputes the way that the Commission calculated the €4.34bn (£3.8bn) fine, something the Commission said was “calculated on the basis of the value of Google’s revenue from search advertising services on Android devices” inside the European Economic Area.
The US Department of Justice has filed charges against Google
What is the threat in the US?
Even if Google succeeds in getting the Commission’s decision annulled or amended, it faces three more challenges in the US which are backed by severe powers to tackle monopolies.
The first complaint was filed last October in a case led by the Trump administration’s Department of Justice and joined by 11 states – though with apparent bipartisan support – charging Alphabet with “unlawfully maintaining monopolies in the markets for general search services”.
It followed a congressional report which accused Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google of monopolising the digital market and recommended antitrust laws be used to break them up.
Two more cases were brought against Google in December.
One from the attorneys general of 35 states accuses the company of anticompetitive practices in order to retain its dominance in search, while another filed by the attorneys general from 10 states focuses on the company’s monopoly power in digital advertising markets.
Google has denied engaging in anticompetitive practices.
The severity cannot be overstated, if an additional 50% tariffs are levied on all Chinese goods it will decimate trade between the world’s two biggest economies.
Remember, 50% would sit on top of what is already on the table: 34% announced last week, 20% announced at the start of US President Donald Trump’s term, and some additional tariffs left over from his first term in office.
In total, it means all Chinese goods would face tariffs of over 100%, some as high as 120%.
It’s a price that makes any trade almost impossible.
China is really the only nation in the world at the moment that is choosing to take a stand.
While others are publicly making concessions and sending delegations to negotiate, China has clearly calculated that not being seen to be bullied is worth the cost that retaliation will bring.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Tariffs: Xi hits back at Trump
The real question, though, is if the US does indeed impose this extra 50% tomorrow, what could or would China do next?
It has said it will “fight to the end”, but what does that mean?
In reality, there are few good options.
There are some obvious measures that China will almost certainly enact.
👉 Follow Trump 100 on your podcast app 👈
Further export controls on rare earth minerals (crucial for the development of high-tech products) are one example. China controls a huge proportion of the world’s supply, but the US would likely find workarounds in time.
Hiking tariffs on high-impact US products such as agricultural goods is another option, but there is only so far this could go.
The potentially more impactful options have significant drawbacks for Beijing.
It could, for instance, target high-profile American companies such as Apple and Tesla, but this isn’t ideal at a time when China is trying to attract more foreign investment, and some devaluation of the currency is possible, but it would also come with adverse effects.
Other options are more political and come with the risk of escalation beyond the economic arena.
In an opinion piece this morning, the editor of Xinhua, China’s state news agency, speculated that China could cease all cooperation with the US on the war against fentanyl.
Read more from Sky News:
Baby girl becomes first child in UK to be born from womb transplant
March hottest on record in Europe and by some margin
This has been a major political issue for Mr Trump, and it’s hard to see it would not constitute some sort of red line for him.
Other options touted include banning the import of American films, or perhaps calling for the Chinese public to boycott all American products.
Anything like this comes with a sense that the world’s two most powerful superpowers might be teetering on the edge of not just a total economic decoupling, but cultural separation too.
There is understandably serious nervousness about how that could spiral and the precedent it sets.
US
Social media posts spark US markets upturn – before White House clarification sends them back into the red
A rumour on social media fuelled a brief upturn for struggling US stock markets – but they swiftly swung back down again after the claim was debunked by the White House.
Markets around the world have struggled since some of Donald Trump’s new import tariffs came into effect over the weekend.
Tariffs latest: Starmer sets out response to US levies
The US markets opened on Monday with a fall for the third day in a row but briefly rallied and showed growth of over 2% at 3.15pm UK time.
The upturn came after a social media rumour claimed a top Trump administration adviser had suggested the president could be considering a 90-day pause on tariffs.
The origin of the false report was unclear but it appeared to be a misinterpretation of a comment made by a White House employee during a Fox News interview.
Asked if the US president would consider a pause, Kevin Hassett, White House National Economic Council director, said: “I think the president is going to decide what the president is going to decide.
“There are more than 50 countries in negotiation with the president.”
Nearly two hours later, multiple X accounts posted identical messages claiming Mr Hassett said a pause – for all countries except China – was being considered.
The identical posts were picked up by some news outlets and stock traders, sending the markets skyrocketing.
However, when the White House said any talk of a pause was “fake news”, they were sent back into the red.
Mr Trump has remained defiant despite fears that his levies could be pushing the US towards a recession.
👉 Follow Trump 100 on your podcast app 👈
The US president has insisted the taxes are necessary for rebuilding domestic manufacturing and resetting trade relationships with other countries.
“Be Strong, Courageous, and Patient, and GREATNESS will be the result!” he wrote on Truth Social on Monday.
More from Sky News:
Trump and Netanyahu cancel news conference
Asian stock markets tumble after tariffs
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What’s going on with the stock markets?
Mr Trump – who played golf in Florida over the weekend – has also threatened an extra tariff on China, after Beijing announced a retaliatory levy on the US.
He said if Beijing does not withdraw its retaliatory tax, the US will impose an additional 50% levy on China and “negotiations with other countries, which have also requested meetings, will begin taking place immediately”.
The Duchess of Sussex has spoken about medical complications she suffered after the birth of one of her children.
Meghan revealed she was diagnosed with postpartum pre-eclampsia, a condition similar to pre-eclampsia which affects women during pregnancy.
In the first episode of a new podcast, Meghan described the condition as “so rare” and “so scary”.
“You’re still trying to juggle all these things and the world doesn’t know what is happening, quietly and in the quiet you are still trying to show up for people,” she added.
“You’re still trying to show up, mostly for your children. But those things are huge medical scares.”
While Meghan spoke about suffering with postpartum pre-eclampsia, she did not reveal whether it happened after the birth of five-year-old son Archie or three-year-old daughter Lilibet.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What we learnt from Meghan series
Postpartum pre-eclampsia is a serious condition linked to high blood pressure which occurs most commonly within the first seven days of a birth, but can be a risk up to six weeks after delivery, according to the charity the Preeclampsia Foundation.
The NHS says symptoms include severe headaches, vision problems, pain below the ribs, vomiting and sudden swelling of the feet, ankles, face and hands.
Without immediate treatment, it can lead to serious complications including, in rare cases, convulsions, liver and blood clotting disorders and strokes.
👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈
Meghan’s podcast, Confessions Of A Female Founder, is the latest show she has produced since the release of her Netflix lifestyle series With Love, Meghan and her new brand As Ever.
She has promised the podcast will feature “girl talk” and advice on how to create “billion-dollar businesses”.
Read more from Sky News:
Meghan shares rare picture of Lilibet
Review: With Love, Meghan
Whitney Wolfe Herd, founder of dating platform Bumble, spoke to Meghan on her podcast about the impact of childbirth.
The first episode was released on the same day Prince Harry appeared at the Royal Courts of Justice in London for the latest stage in his legal challenge over the level of security he is given when he is in the UK.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway