Loading More Content
Google has had its fair share of legal issues with the EU in the past – this case is hardly a surprise, in other words. Most of them relate to competition law/antitrust concerns – often meaning that Google has reportedly formed monopolies and dominated certain online markets through its control over web listings.
Over the past few years, Google has totalled an unprecedented €8 billion (approximately) in fines from the EU alone – a hugely significant number, even for a tech giant of Google’s size.
One such case is an ongoing dispute over Google’s dominance in the ad tech market, which is still being deliberated (though numerous commentators are expecting heavily fines there, too).
Google also lost another case recently when the European Court of Justice ruled against them in a shopping service dispute (where Google was found to consistently rank its own listing above those of its competitors). The fine imposed here was a huge €2.4 billion.
In response to the series of cases (both historical and ongoing), Brussels has previously even raised the idea of breaking Google up in order to maintain some sense of competition in Europe. This is a rather draconian approach which appears relatively unlikely to happen in practice, though further fines appear very likely.
The EU have also found monopoly concerns surrounding a variety of other tech giants (some argue it is becoming a growing problem in this area). For example, see the Microsoft and Activision Blizzard case from early 2023.
This is not to say Google’s EU woes are limited to this practice area, however – just last week, Brussels told Google that its tax structure via a deal struck with Ireland (leading to Google paying taxes that, in practice, amounted to less than 1% of its profits) was in fact illegal, and ordered it to pay back taxes of a staggering €13 billion.
In this case specifically, the European Commission (led by the soon-to-be retired Margrethe Vestager), who launched the action back in 2019 (relating to violations between 2006 and 2016), has alleged that Google abused its position in order to stop rival advertisers from deploying ads effectively online.
A particular concern is the fact that Google Ads (who reportedly control more than 90% of the market) have particularly restrictive ‘Rules’ which govern how they interact with the service. Due to the dominance of Google Ads, users of the service were essentially unable to look elsewhere. The EU also dispute the way that some of these Rules are applied:
‘Google has also acted inconsistently towards certain advertisers, aggravating the lack of clarity of the Rules. Google’s sales teams have thus been able to work proactively with some advertisers, offering them “personalised assistance” to develop their sites through the Google Ads services. However, some of the sites approached are sites that were previously suspended for breaching the Rules, particularly those designed to protect internet users’.
They alleged that these violations directly contradicted ‘Article L. 420-2 of the French Code of Commercial Law (Code de Commerce) and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’.
The initial ruling from Brussels was that Google were indeed at fault, and so the huge fine was issued. Details of the case can be found on the official EU website. This includes an English translated version (though, as some law students may know, only the original French text is technically ‘authoritative’).
The EU’s General Court (its second highest) ruled that, while most of the observations made by the European Commission were correct in terms of law, they also failed to properly weigh up the factors involved, and so the fine issued was far too high.
The European Commission has ‘taken note’ of the judgment and will now consider its position. In practice, this means that it is very likely to appeal the case up to the highest level of EU law – the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU).
Google have issued the following statement in response to the ruling:
‘This case is about a very narrow subset of text-only search ads placed on a limited number of publishers’ websites. We made changes to our contracts in 2016 to remove the relevant provisions, even before the commission’s decision. We are pleased that the court has recognised errors in the original decision and annulled the fine. We will review the full decision closely.’
There are a number of points to take here for your applications (whether for training contracts, vacation schemes, pupillage, etc).
Naturally, you can start by specifying practice area – this will be particularly useful if you are applying to a law firm or chambers with a specialism in, for example, competition law. This story is heavily based on the monopoly issues which Google have been facing over the past few years, and this is a trend which is likely to continue.
Another point to consider is the cross-jurisdictional nature of this story. Clients like Google go to the best-respected (and often most expensive) law firms like those in the Magic Circle or elite US band because of their international footprint and expertise in dealing with issues like the applicability of EU law to international companies.
Skills such as collaboration between lawyers are essential for a successful career as a solicitor in particular (given how they often work in large teams – in contrast with barristers).
Acting for technology companies is somewhat of a specific niche in itself nowadays, too (one which crosses numerous practice area boundaries, encompassing everything from competition law to consumer and intellectual property considerations).
In short, then, there are various points you could take from this story into both initial application forms and, later, interviews.
Loading More Content