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.
Advertisement
Image: 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.
Image: 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.”
Image: 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.
Image: 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”.
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.
In years to come, it may become known simply as Chequers ’25.
But today’s summit between Sir Keir Starmer and Donald Trump, at the prime minister’s country retreat, has the potential to be a landmark moment in UK-US history.
There’s plenty of scope for it to go horribly wrong, of course: over Jeffrey Epstein, Sir Keir’s pledge to recognise Palestine, the president’s lukewarm support for Ukraine, the Chagos Islands sell-off, or free speech.
But on the other hand, it could be a triumph for the so-called “special relationship” – as well as relations between these two unlikely allies – with deals on trade and tariffs and an improbably blossoming bromance.
Either way, this Chequers summit – on the president’s historic second state visit to the UK – could turn out to be one of the most notable one-to-one meetings between PM and president in 20th and 21st century history.
Image: Donald Trump and Keir Starmer wave as they board Air Force One on a previous trip. Pic: AP
It was then that the PM theatrically pulled King Charles’s invitation for this week’s visit out of his inside pocket in a spectacular stunt surely masterminded by the “Prince of Darkness”, spin doctor-turned-ambassador (until last week, anyway) Peter Mandelson.
And over the years, there have been some remarkable and historic meetings and relationships, good and bad, between UK prime ministers and American presidents.
From Churchill and Roosevelt to Eden and Eisenhower, from Macmillan and JFK to Wilson and Johnson, from Thatcher and Reagan, to Blair and Bush, and from Cameron and Obama… to Starmer and Trump, perhaps?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:08
‘History’ that binds the UK and US
A brief history of relationships between PMs and presidents
Throughout UK-US history, there have been many examples of a good relationship and close bond between a Labour prime minister and a Republican president. And vice versa.
Also, it has not always been rosy between prime ministers and presidents of the two sister parties. There have been big fallings out: over Suez, Vietnam and the Caribbean island of Grenada.
Leading up to this Chequers summit, the omens have not been good.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:47
Trump meets Starmer: What can we expect?
Second, the president arrived in the UK to a barrage of criticism from London mayor Sir Sadiq Khan, who accused him of doing more than anyone else to encourage the intolerant far right across the globe.
Image: Churchill and FDR at the White House in 1941. Pic: AP
Back in the mid-20th century, the godfather of the “special relationship” was wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill, though it was 1946 before he first coined the phrase in a speech in the US, in which he also spoke of the “iron curtain”.
It was in 1941 that Churchill held one of the most significant meetings with a US president, Franklin D Roosevelt, at a Washington conference to plot the defeat of Germany after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour.
Churchill arrived in Washington in December after a rough 10-day voyage on a Royal Navy battleship and stayed three weeks, spending Christmas in the White House and on Boxing Day becoming the first UK PM to address Congress.
The close bond between Churchill and Roosevelt was described as a friendship that saved the world. It was even claimed one reason the pair got on famously was that they were both renowned cigar smokers.
Churchill and Truman
Image: Churchill and Truman catch a train from Washington in 1946. Pic: AP
After the war ended, Churchill’s “special relationship” speech, describing the alliance between the UK and US, was delivered at Westminster College, in Fulton, Missouri in March 1946.
The speech was introduced by president Harry Truman, a Democrat, with whom Churchill had attended the Potsdam Conference in 1945 to negotiate the terms of ending the war.
These two were also close friends and would write handwritten letters to each other and address one another as Harry and Winston. Mr Truman was also the only US president to visit Churchill at Chartwell, his family home.
Eden and Eisenhower
Image: Eden and Eisenhower shake hands at the conclusion of their three-day conference in 1956. Pic: AP
But the transatlantic cosiness came to an abrupt end in the 1950s, when Churchill’s Conservative successor Anthony Eden fell out badly with the Republican president Dwight Eisenhower over the Suez Crisis.
Mr Eden did visit Mr Eisenhower in Washington in January 1956, and the official record of the meeting describes the discussion as focussing on “policy differences and Cold War problems”.
Macmillan and JFK
Image: Harold Macmillan and John F Kennedy at Andrews Air Force Base. Pic: AP
But in the early 1960s, a Conservative prime minister and a Democrat president with seemingly nothing in common, the stuffy and diffident Harold Macmillan, and the charismatic John F Kennedy, repaired the damage.
They were credited with rescuing the special relationship after the rupture of the Suez Crisis, at a time of high tensions around the world: the Berlin Wall, the Cuban missile crisis, and the threat of nuclear weapons.
The two leaders exchanged handwritten notes, as well as Christmas and birthday cards. The Macmillans visited the Kennedys twice at the White House, in 1961 and 1962 – the second described in the US as a “momentous” meeting on the Cuban crisis.
The relationship was abruptly cut short in 1963 by Supermac’s demise prompted by the Profumo scandal, and JFK’s assassination in Dallas. But after her husband’s death, Jacqueline Kennedy was said to have had a father-daughter relationship with Macmillan, who was said to have been enchanted with her.
Wilson and LBJ
Image: Johnson meeting with Wilson. Pic: Glasshouse Images/Shutterstock
After JFK, the so-called special relationship cooled once again – and under a Labour prime minister and Democrat president – when Harold Wilson rejected pressure from Lyndon B Johnson to send British troops to Vietnam.
Mr Wilson became prime minister in 1964, just two months after LBJ sent US troops. His first overseas trip was to the White House, in December 1964, and the PM returned to tell his cabinet: “Lyndon Johnson is begging me even to send a bagpipe band to Vietnam.”
Thatcher and Reagan
Image: Thatcher at Reagan’s 83rd birthday celebrations. Pic: Reuters
And even though Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were ideological soulmates, Thatcher was furious when she wasn’t consulted before the Americans invaded Grenada in 1983 to topple a Marxist regime.
Even worse, according to Mrs Thatcher’s allies, a year earlier, Reagan had stayed neutral during the Falklands War. Reagan said he couldn’t understand why two US allies were arguing over “that little ice-cold bunch of land down there”.
Image: Thatcher and Reagan became firm friends. Pic: Reuters
But their relationship didn’t just survive, it flourished, including at one memorable visit to the presidential retreat at Camp David in 1984, where Reagan famously drove Mrs T around in a golf buggy.
They would also memorably dance together at White House balls.
Blair and Bush
Image: Blair hosts Bush in Durham in 2003. Pic: PA
Camp David was also where, in 2001, Republican president George W Bush and Labour’s Sir Tony Blair embarked on the defining mission of his premiership: the Iraq War. It was to prove to be an historic encounter.
The war was the turning point of Sir Tony’s decade in Number 10. He was branded a liar over claims about Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction”, he was vilified by the Labour left, and it was the beginning of the end for him.
And to add to the suspicion among Sir Tony’s critics that he was Mr Bush’s poodle, in 2006 at a G8 summit in St Petersburg – that wouldn’t happen now – a rogue microphone picked up the president calling, “Yo, Blair! How are you doing?”
Cameron and Obama
Image: Cameron and Obama serve food at a barbecue in the garden of 10 Downing Street. Pic: Reuters
Some years later, the Tory prime minister sometimes called the “heir to Blair”, David Cameron, bonded over burgers with the Democrat president Barack Obama, serving a BBQ lunch to military families in the Downing Street garden. They also played golf at the exclusive Grove resort in 2016.
They seemed unlikely allies: Obama, the first African-American president, and Cameron, the 19th old Etonian prime minister. It was claimed they had a “transatlantic bromance” in office. “Yes, he sometimes calls me bro,” Lord Cameron admitted.
But not everything went well.
The Tory PM persuaded Mr Obama to help the Remain campaign in the 2016 Brexit referendum, when he claimed the UK would be “at the back of the queue” on trade deals with the US, if it left the EU. It backfired, of course.
Now it’s Sir Keir Starmer’s turn to tread a delicate and potentially hazardous political tightrope as he entertains the latest – and most unconventional – US president.
The greatest dangers for Sir Keir will be a news conference in the afternoon, in the gardens, if the weather permits.
Good luck, as they say, with that.
Before then, there’s the potential for what the Americans call a “pool spray”, one of those impromptu, rambling and unpredictable Q&As we’ve seen so many times in the Oval Office.
For Sir Keir, what could possibly go wrong?
Chequers ’25 could be memorable and notable, like so many previous meetings between a PM and a president. But not necessarily for the right reasons for this UK prime minister.
The pomp and circumstance. The man who some say wants to be king, meets The King.
Trump and King Charles spend the day together. We digest what’s happened, why it’s happened, and what it all means. You can also watch all episodes on our YouTube channel.
Email us on trump100@sky.uk with your comments and questions.
The comedian told his audience “many in MAGA land are working very hard to capitalise on the murder of Charlie Kirk”.
He added the president’s response to Mr Kirk’s death “is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend”.
Disney-owned ABC said it would be taken off-air indefinitely – and with immediate effect – after network operator Nexstar said it would stop broadcasting the programme.
Andrew Alford, president of Nexstar’s broadcasting division, said it “strongly objects” to Kimmel’s comments.
“Mr Kimmel’s comments about the death of Mr Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse,” he said, with the show to go off-air to “let cooler heads prevail”.
Mr Trump welcomed the news on Truth Social, writing “congratulations to ABC” and “Kimmel has ZERO talent”.
But Kimmel’s suspension has triggered outrage from Democrats like California Governor Gavin Newsom, who posted on X: “The @GOP [Republican Party] does not believe in free speech. They are censoring you in real time.”
Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called for people “across the political spectrum… to stop what’s happening to Jimmy Kimmel”.
What happened?
Kimmel called out what he believes is hypocrisy in how Republicans have responded to Mr Kirk’s death.
In a separate Truth Social post in the early hours of Thursday, the president – who is in the UK for his state visit – announced the anti-fascist Antifa movement would be designated as a terrorist organisation.
Mr Kirk’s suspected killer, Tyler Robinson, appeared in court for the first time on Tuesday. Prosecutors said he had shared negative views about Mr Kirk, an influential media figure in the MAGA movement.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
11:54
The killing of Charlie Kirk
On the Monday edition of his show, Kimmel drew attention to Capitol rioters who “wanted to hang” Mr Trump’s first term vice president, Mike Pence, for certifying Joe Biden’s 2020 election win.
“Was that the liberal left? Or the toothless army who stormed the Capitol on January 6,” said Kimmel.
His remarks saw the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Trump backer Brendan Carr, threaten to “take action” against Disney and ABC.
A representative for Kimmel did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the cancellation.
Celebrities who have guested on his show joined Democrats in speaking out. Wanda Sykes accused Mr Trump of seeking to end freedom of speech, while Ben Stiller tweeted: “This isn’t right.”
The latest season of Jimmy Kimmel Live averaged 1.57 million viewers per episode, according to media research firm Nielsen – and the show’s YouTube channel has almost 21 million subscribers.
Kimmel follows in Colbert’s footsteps
The abrupt removal of Jimmy Kimmel Live comes after fellow late night host Stephen Colbert saw his programme cancelled, which fans claimed was a result of his criticism of Mr Trump.
Mr Trump presents himself as a staunch advocate of free speech, but regularly rails against media organisations which criticise him. This week he launched a lawsuit against The New York Times.
CBS announced in July it would end The Late Show when its current series ends next May.
In a statement, the network said the move was “not related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.”
Mr Trump praised the move, saying “his talent was even worse than his ratings”.
Colbert’s Late Show won an Emmy for outstanding talk series for the first time at the weekend.