The US innovates and the EU regulates, or so some transatlantic bettors like to repeat. We won’t get bogged down in the noise here, but two things are clear: The EU’s single market has its own set of rules, and many US tech giants have been flouting EU competition rules for the past several decades. Make of that what you will.
Earlier this month, while she was enjoying Major Appeals Against Apple, Google in Two Antitrust Cases RestoredThe EU’s outgoing competition chief Margrethe Vestager has jokingly referred to big tech companies as some of her best customers. Ugh.
We’ve compiled a list of 10 of the EU’s biggest antitrust actions targeting tech to provide an overview of the most high-profile—if not always consequential—competitive skirmishes between Brussels and industry heavyweights over the past several decades of digital development. The list is ranked by the size of the fine or liability they entail.
While it is fair to say that the results of EU antitrust enforcement have been mixed, one lasting legacy is that some of these major cases have served as inspiration for EU policy. Digital Markets ActFixing competitiveness in the core market could hurt big tech players harder and faster in the coming years. It’s finally time for big tech to get ready.
Ireland Tax Breaks for Apple
no one Enjoy paying taxes, let alone claiming back taxes. But by September 2018, Apple had The EU has delivered an amazing gift. 13.1 billion euros (then worth $15.3 billion) after the EU successfully sued one of its member states, Ireland, over illegal tax breaks granted to Apple between 1991 and 2014.
The state aid case, which generally falls under EU competition rules, has been going back and forth through the EU’s appeal courts. But in 2011, September 2024The UK Court of Justice has confirmed the Commission’s original finding of August 2016 on illegal state aid.
With a final ruling from the Supreme Court (and not a referral to a lower court), Apple’s legal options to continue challenging the decision have almost completely been exhausted, and it appears that billions in unpaid taxes held in an EU escrow account will finally flow into Ireland’s coffers.
Google’s restrictions on OEMs regarding Android
The careful management of what software mobile device makers can bundle with the Android operating system—to get their products to Android users regardless of their device of choice—has landed Google in expensive trouble in the European Union in recent years. In fact, the company has been hit with an estimated $5 billion in antitrust charges. Committee Decision 2018 Sanctions for abuse of a dominant position were, and remain, the standard penalty for this category of competition abuse.
Original European Union 4.34 billion euros The fine imposed on Google was slightly reduced to €4.125 billion in September 2022. Appeal decision issued by the General CourtHowever, the judges largely upheld the Commission’s original decision, and rejected Google’s attempt to overturn the decision.
In June 2017, Google has been dealt another blow. (at the time) broke the record 2.42 billion euros Google’s penalty for abuse of dominant position – This penalty relates to how it operates its product comparison service, Google Shopping (formerly called Google Product Search, and before that, the parody-branded Froogle).
The EU found that Google not only unfairly favored its own shopping comparison service (of the same name) in organic search results, a market the tech giant has almost completely conquered in Europe, but also demoted rival comparison services. That led to a multibillion-euro fine — worth about $2.73 billion at the time it was announced — that was later upheld in the European Court of Justice. September 2024 Decision of the Supreme Court of the European Union.
Apple’s Anti-Directive Policy Regarding Music Streaming on iOS
The EU has branched out to a competition theory of harm that accuses Apple of exploiting consumers, not exclusionary behavior, in this long-running enforcement against Apple’s behavior in the iOS music streaming market.
The competition division of the EU has changed course several times, investigating complaints from iOS developers against the App Store operator. But in March 2024, it ended up Apple hit with 1.84 billion euros fine (about $2 billion) to stop developers from telling iPhone users about cheaper deals available outside the Apple Store. The vast majority of the fine — all of €1.8 billion — was applied in addition to the EU’s standard damages calculation, which the bloc said it hoped would act as a deterrent. (Without it, the fine would have been just €40 million — or a “parking ticket” penalty for big tech companies.)
Google AdSense Restrictions
Another Antitrust Fine of Over $1 Billion Google hit for abuse of dominance In March 2019, the European Union imposed sanctions on the company over its search ad brokering business. The Commission found that it had used restrictive clauses in contracts with clients between 2006 and 2016 in an attempt to squeeze out rival ad brokers. 1.49 billion euros (or approximately $1.7 billion) was properly imposed.
However, in September 2024, despite the majority upholding the Commission’s findings, the General Court of the European Union ruled to annul its decision. AdSense decision has been overturned. In all, a complaint has been filed about errors in how the Commission assessed the duration of Google contracts. It remains to be seen whether the EU will appeal the decision.
The committee still has another case (Opens) A case study of the advertising technology that Google uses more widely, which may make the AdSense case seem like a trivial matter. Margrethe Vestager I warned last year If suspected violations are confirmed, structural separation (i.e., dismantling Google) may be the only viable remedy.
Computer Monitor and TV Parts Price Fixing Cartel
In 2012, the European Union issued a total of 1.47 billion euros In fines in cartel case It concerns the sale of components used in computer monitors and televisions. A group of electronics giants fell into a price-fixing scheme for cathode ray tubes (CRTs) between 1996 and 2006. The components were used in computer monitors and televisions in the pre-flat-panel era, and the commission found that device manufacturers colluded to fix prices. Seven electronics giants involved in one or two of the CRT cartels have been fined, including LG, Panasonic, Philips, Samsung and Toshiba.
Intel’s Exclusion Practices
Going back in time, we come to May 2009, which was then register 1.06 billion euros Antitrust penalty on chipmaker Intel After the European Union found that the American giant had abused its dominant position to exclude its rival AMD. Intel was paying computer manufacturers and retailers to delay, cancel or avoid using or selling AMD products, and the EU found that these exclusionary practices violated competition rules.
The chipmaker appealed the EU’s decision to implement the law with some success over the next decade of legal arguments. In 2017, the Court of Justice ruled that Cancel a previous ruling A lower court overturned the decision and referred the case to the General Court, which overturned part of the Commission’s decision, while allowing that some of Intel’s practices were illegal.
The court cancelled the original fine in full, due to uncertainty about the calculation of the penalty, but last year The European Union has fined Intel €376.36 million for “naked restrictions” that the court upheld. The appeals are ongoing, so it’s not clear where this process will end.
Qualcomm’s deal with Apple on mobile chips
In early 2018, it was Qualcomm’s role in mobile chipmaking You could be hit with a major EU antitrust penalty: 997 million euros (Or about $1.23 billion at the time.) The penalty was for abuse of a dominant position between 2011 and 2016. The enforcement focused on Qualcomm’s relationship with Apple, which the EU ruled had shut out rival chipmakers’ market for supplying LTE baseband chips by paying Apple to use its chips exclusively for iPhones and iPads.
However, Qualcomm appealed the decision, and in June 2022 the General Court of the European Union issued a ruling annulling the ruling. Judged in her favorShe rejected the Commission’s analysis and also found some procedural errors in her case. Confirmed later She won’t appeal the ruling, so this is a major antitrust penalty that didn’t make it beyond the headlines.
The bloc had better luck in a separate (and longer-running) antitrust action against the chipmaker: in September 2024, the General Court ruled that The committee’s sanction was largely upheld. Qualcomm has been sued for nearly $270 million in a case involving unfair pricing.
Microsoft’s Anti-Competitive Licensing Practices
We have to go back to March 2004 to find out when the European Union punished Microsoft for abusing its dominant position through its Windows operating system. 497 million euros The penalty (about $794 million) would be worth closer to €762 million (or about $1.3 billion) today, taking into account inflation in the euro area (per capita). This tool).
The original complaint that sparked the investigation into Microsoft’s licensing and copyright practices dates back to 1993. The EU’s enforcement of the law on Microsoft Upheld on appealIn addition to the fine, the EU ordered various measures, including interoperability requirements, and imposed a second, larger penalty of €899 million on Microsoft in 2011. February 2008 In 2012, the General Court of the European Union upheld the non-compliance penalty, but reduced the fine slightly to €860 million.
Luxembourg-Amazon Tax Agreement
in Government Aid Case for October 2017The EU alleged that Luxembourg, the member state where the e-commerce giant is based, granted the company “undue tax advantages” between May 2006 and June 2014. The commission found that Amazon’s corporate structure in the country allowed it to pay four times less tax than other companies based there – a tax break that the EU calculated was worth about $1.2 billion. 250 million euros(The EU does not impose fines in cases of state aid, but requires the recovery of any taxes not collected illegally.)
But while the Commission objected to Luxembourg’s method of calculating Amazon’s taxable profits in the country, unlike the Irish state aid-Apple case mentioned above, its arguments did not succeed in court: in a final ruling Late last yearThe EU’s top court has thrown out the Commission’s ruling, finding that the EU had failed to prove that Luxembourg’s tax decision was unlawful. The result? Amazon is out of the woods.
