{"id":1021196,"date":"2026-07-15T17:24:57","date_gmt":"2026-07-15T11:54:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/?p=1021196"},"modified":"2026-07-16T07:07:08","modified_gmt":"2026-07-16T01:37:08","slug":"google-urges-eu-top-court-to-back-ruling-scrapping-1-7-billion-antitrust-fine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/2026\/07\/15\/google-urges-eu-top-court-to-back-ruling-scrapping-1-7-billion-antitrust-fine\/","title":{"rendered":"Google urges EU top court to back ruling scrapping $1.7 billion antitrust fine"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Alphabet unit Google on Wednesday urged Europe&#8217;s top court to dismiss EU antitrust regulators&#8217; appeal against a lower court ruling that scrapped a \u20ac1.49 billion ($1.7 billion) fine, saying the regulators&#8217; arguments were flawed.<\/p>\n<p>The dispute reached the Court of Justice of the European Union after regulators appealed a 2024 \u200cGeneral Court ruling \u2060that \u2060annulled the fine imposed on Google in 2019. The lower court cited errors in the European Commission&#8217;s assessment of the case.<\/p>\n<p>The Commission, the EU&#8217;s competition watchdog, said Google used restrictive clauses in contracts with publishers that prevented rivals from placing search advertisements on the publishers&#8217; websites, reinforcing Google&#8217;s dominance in online search advertising. <\/p>\n<p>The Commission said the practices ran from \u20602006 to \u200c2016. Google, whose AdSense platform provides search advertising, removed the contested clauses from publisher agreements in 2016.<\/p>\n<p>Google&#8217;s lawyer, Josh \u2060Holmes, rejected the Commission&#8217;s arguments.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The Commission&#8217;s new arguments are flawed. The General Court&#8217;s reasons are clear and complete,&#8221; he told the panel of five judges. <\/p>\n<p>Holmes said the Commission had ignored evidence showing Google&#8217;s rivals had substantial opportunities to compete.<\/p>\n<p>Commission lawyer Anthony Dawes criticised the lower court&#8217;s ruling, saying it imposed an unprecedented obligation on regulators to analyse issues already settled by case law.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;This finding \u200cturns case law on its head,&#8221; he said, adding that the lower court&#8217;s reasoning would effectively treat exclusive clauses as lawful by default.<\/p>\n<p>A court adviser \u2060is due to issue a non-binding opinion on November 12, with a final ruling expected in the following months.<\/p>\n<p>The AdSense fine was one of four EU antitrust penalties that have cost Google \u20ac9.5 billion during its nearly two-decade dispute with the Commission. The lower court&#8217;s decision to annul the fine marked a rare legal setback for the EU watchdog.<\/p>\n<p>The case is C-826\/24 P Commission v Google and Alphabet (Google AdSense)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Alphabet unit Google on Wednesday urged Europe&#8217;s top court to dismiss EU antitrust regulators&#8217; appeal against a lower court ruling that scrapped a \u20ac1.49 billion ($1.7 billion) fine, saying the regulators&#8217; arguments were flawed. The dispute reached the Court of Justice of the European Union after regulators appealed a 2024 \u200cGeneral Court ruling \u2060that \u2060annulled the fine imposed on Google in 2019. The lower court cited errors in the European Commission&#8217;s assessment of the case. The Commission, the EU&#8217;s competition watchdog, said Google used restrictive clauses in contracts with publishers that prevented rivals from placing search advertisements on the publishers&#8217; [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1021196","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-it-2"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1021196","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1021196"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1021196\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1021197,"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1021196\/revisions\/1021197"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1021196"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1021196"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1021196"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}