Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: European Court of Justice upholds €4.125 billion fine on Google, (Jul 6, 2026)

By Peter Reap, J.D., LL.M.

The Court of Justice largely affirmed findings that Google imposed unlawful restrictions on manufacturers of Android mobile devices and mobile network operators in order to consolidate the dominant position of its search engine.

The European Court of Justice announced that it has confirmed the €4.125 billion ($4.72 billion) penalty imposed upon Google and Alphabet by the General Court for anticompetitive practices relating to the Android operating system. The lengthy decision, sets out in detail the Court of Justice’s reasons for rejecting each of six distinct grounds asserted by Google and Alphabet (together, Google or the defendants) on appeal. It also lays out the underpinnings of the case against the defendants for, in short, violating European competition law by including certain mandatory conditions and restrictions in Android licensing agreements with mobile device manufacturers. Among other things, the anticompetitive restrictions tied the Google Search app with the Android Play Store, tied the Chrome browser with the Play Store and the Google Search app, and required pre-installation of Google Search and Chrome on devices.

Background. The European Commission (EC) opened an investigation in 2015 into the extent to which competition for end users, particularly between Apple and Android devices, could be indirectly constrained by Google's market power for the licensing of Android to device manufacturers. Android, which Google purchased in 2005, is a licensable smart mobile operating system. Google, the EC found, is dominant in the worldwide market (excluding China) for licensable smart mobile operating systems. Third-party manufacturers of smart mobile devices can license and run Android on their devices but manufacturers who wish to obtain Google's proprietary Android apps and services need to enter into contracts with Google, as part of which Google imposes a number of restrictions. Google has (1) required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and the Chrome browser as a condition for licensing Google's Play Store; (2) made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and (3) prevented manufacturers that wanted to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

The EC found that Google engaged in three separate types of practices, which all had the aim of cementing Google's dominant position in general Internet search. Specifically, Google engaged in illegal tying of the Google Search app and the tying of the Chrome browser in order to ensure that the Search app and Chrome were installed on every Android device sold in Europe.

The EC also concluded that Google made illegal payments conditional on exclusive pre-installation of Google Search. Google granted significant financial incentives to some of the largest device manufacturers as well as mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed Google Search across their entire portfolio of Android devices. Finally, the EC found that Google illegally obstructed development and distribution of competing Android operating systems.

Having found these violations of European competition law, the EC imposed a fine of €4.34 billion ($4.96 billion) on the defendants in 2018.

In 2022, on appeal to the General Court, part of the EC determination was overturned as it related to certain revenue sharing agreements, and the EC’s fine reassessed to €4.125 billion, with Alphabet jointly and severally liable as to €1.52 billion. Google and Alphabet then appealed that ruling to the Court of Justice.

Court of Justice ruling. The Court of Justice held that the General Court did not err when assessing the anticompetitive effects of the pre-installation conditions set out in the Android agreements between the defendants and device manufacturers. The General Court did not err in finding that there was a status quo bias in favor of pre-installed apps and that Google and Alphabet failed to show that user preferences or the alleged quality of their services alone accounted for their anticompetitive behaviors.

Second, the General Court did not err in law by confirming the EC’s assessment of the pre-installation conditions laid down by the Android agreements. Demonstrating an abuse of a dominant position is not conditional in any case on proof of a capability to foreclose only as-efficient competitors. Given the particular characteristics of the digital markets concerned, the General Court was entitled to conclude that the practices of the defendants were liable to restrict competition and strengthen barriers to entry without applying that test.

Third, the General Court did not err by confirming the EC’s assessment of the anti-fragmentation agreements. Under these agreements, the operating licenses necessary for the pre-installation of the Google Search and Play Store apps could be obtained by mobile device manufacturers only if they undertook not to sell devices running versions of the Android operating system not approved by Google. Those agreements were liable to limit commercial markets for non-compatible Android versions and thus to strengthen Google’s dominant position, according to the Court of Justice. A counterfactual analysis was not necessary, because the anticompetitive effects of the conduct had been sufficiently established.

Fourth, the General Court was entitled to reject the justifications put forward by Google for using the anti-fragmentation agreements and in determining that the violation was single and continuous despite the partial annulment in respect of certain revenue share agreements, because the remaining abuses still formed part of the same anticompetitive strategy.

Finally, the Court of Justice endorsed the revised fine established by the General Court.

Companies: Google; Alphabet

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust GCNNews