Background of the case
Google has consistently maintained a strong competitive presence within the internal market, securing dominant positions across several key sectors. Over the years, the company's dominance has steadily expanded across multiple interconnected digital markets, including online search services, online advertising intermediation, web browsers and mobile operating systems. This dominance is reflected in Google's substantial market shares : (a) over 90% in general search services across most EEA Member States, (b) more than 95% in the market of licensable smart mobile operating systems and (c) above 90% in the market for Android apps.
Since 2011, Google has systematically breached its obligations under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement through three distinct anticompetitive practices. First, Google illegally tied its products by requiring device manufacturers to pre- install both Google Search and Chrome browser as a condition for Play Store licensing, thereby excluding competitors in search engines and browser markets. Moreover, Google made conditional payments to device manufacturers and mobile network operators in exchange for the exclusive pre- installation of Google Search, preventing competitors from entering or surviving in the relevant markets. Eventually, Google prohibited manufacturers that wished to pre- install Google apps from selling any smart mobile devices running alternative (unapproved) versions of Android.
After years of investigation, on 18 July 2018, the European Commission identified four relevant markets where Google held dominant position and concluded that Google had abused its dominant position in these markets. Due to this abuse, the Commission imposed a fine of €4.34 billion, ordering the company to comply with its obligations under the TFEU, within 90 days from the decision (Decision C (2018) 4761).
Google's Appeal to the General Court
In October 2018, Google filed an appeal to the General Court, challenging the Commission's definition of the relevant markets and its finding of dominance. A few years later, on 14 September 2022, the General Court reduced the fine to €4.125 billion (Case T-604/18). Following this decision, in late 2022, Google filed an appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), challenging the General Court's Judgment (Case 738/22 P).
Google's Appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union
Google's appeal to the CJEU was based on six distinct grounds. Initially, Google contested the General Court's assessment of the connection between the pre-installation requirements contained in the Mobile Application Distribution Agreements (MADAs) — contracts between Google and Android device manufacturers — and their alleged anti-competitive effects. Additionally, Google argued that the General Court inappropriately concluded that MADAs could exclude competitors 'as efficient as Google', claiming the Commission failed to prove this point. Another argument raised in Google's appeal was that the General Court unfairly broadened the scope of the abusive practices recognized by the Commission, attributing exclusionary effects to conduct that the Commission had not itself deemed abusive. Furthermore, Google argued that the General Court unreasonably rejected its justification that the controversial agreements with manufacturers served in fact legitimate business purposes and were necessary to protect the Android system from harmful fragmentation. Moreover, Google maintained that the General Court should have annulled the entire decision at issue after finding that the Commission had not established the abusive nature of the portfolio- based RSAs. Finally, Google argued that the General Court committed several errors in the recalculation of the fine and asserted that the resulting penalty reduction was insufficient, given the elimination of certain violations.
Post – Appeal Developments
On 19 June 2025, Advocate General Juliane Kokott issued her non- binding opinion, recommending that Google's appeal to the CJEU be dismissed in its entirety, thereby upholding the European Commission's decision. Specifically, Kokott concluded that all of Google's legal challenges lacked merit. She further determined that, in Google's case, "it is not realistic to compare the situation of Google with that of a hypothetical as-efficient competitor", given Google's dominant positions across multiple digital markets and its ability to benefit from network effects that no hypothetical competitor could replicate. Eventually, she argued that imposing such comparative requirements in digital markets risks undermining the effectiveness of EU competition law in addressing abuses of dominant positions.
Evaluation of the Advocate General's opinion
Advocate General Kokott's opinion represents a significant milestone in the progression toward the final resolution of the Google Android case. Although her opinion lacks binding legal force, empirical evidence indicates that the CJEU aligns with Advocate General recommendations in the majority of cases. Consequently, Kokott's comprehensive analysis is anticipated to exert considerable influence on the Court's final judgment, potentially leading to the dismissal of Google's appeal and the upholding of the €4.125 billion fine imposed by the Commission – the highest fine ever imposed in competition law proceedings.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
