Google’s mounting legal troubles have reached a critical juncture, with European price-comparison platforms now seeking at least €12 billion in collective damages, alleging the tech giant deliberately stifled competition to favour its own shopping service. This latest wave of litigation follows a 2017 ruling by the European Commission, which fined Google €2.4 billion for antitrust violations—a decision upheld in 2024 by the EU’s highest court, confirming that Google had illegally leveraged its dominance in search to suppress rivals.
Legal experts caution that even if the courts rule against Google, any financial penalties will take years to materialise, with appeals likely to drag out proceedings.
More consequential, however, is the potential precedent set by these cases. Should the EU and UK enforce structural remedies—such as forcing Google to divest parts of its ad-tech business or disentangle its search and shopping services—it could mark a turning point in global antitrust enforcement. For now, Google’s strategy remains one of attrition: delay, dispute, and dismiss. But with regulators and rivals increasingly aligned, the tech giant’s legal battles are far from over.
The claimants, including UK-based Kelkoo and Foundem, argue that Google manipulated search results to prioritise its own shopping comparison tool while burying competitors under generic blue links, effectively diverting traffic and revenue away from independent platforms. The scale of the claims is staggering: Italy’s Trovaprezzi demands €2.97 billion, Sweden’s Pricerunner seeks €2.1 billion, and the UK’s Kelkoo has filed for €1.4 billion, among others. Yet scepticism surrounds these demands, with critics questioning whether the claimants’ struggles stem from Google’s actions or their own inability to adapt to a shifting digital landscape.
Google maintains that it has complied with EU directives since 2017, insisting that the price-comparison sector is now thriving under revised search algorithms. However, evidence suggests otherwise. Internal documents reveal that Google’s own shopping service continues to dominate visibility, with competitors relegated to less prominent placements—a tactic that has drawn sharp criticism from regulators and rivals alike. The company’s defence hinges on technicalities, arguing that the claimants must prove direct financial harm—a hurdle that, while legally valid, does little to dispel accusations of systemic market manipulation.
From a British perspective, the case underscores broader concerns about Google’s unchecked influence. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has launched a parallel investigation into Google’s search and advertising practices, probing whether the company’s dominance—commanding 90% of the UK search market—has led to inflated ad costs for businesses. Meanwhile, a separate £5 billion class-action lawsuit accuses Google of anti-competitive contracts with device manufacturers, ensuring its search engine remains the default option on smartphones. Critics argue that these tactics, while lucrative for Google, have eroded fair competition and consumer choice.
