Topics
Latest
AI
Amazon
Image Credits:Paul(opens in a new window)/Flickr(opens in a new window)under aCC BY 2.0(opens in a new window)license.
Apps
Biotech & Health
Climate
Image Credits:Paul(opens in a new window)/Flickr(opens in a new window)under aCC BY 2.0(opens in a new window)license.
Cloud Computing
Commerce
Crypto
Enterprise
EVs
Fintech
fundraise
Gadgets
game
Government & Policy
computer hardware
Layoffs
Media & Entertainment
Meta
Microsoft
Privacy
Robotics
Security
societal
Space
startup
TikTok
fare
Venture
More from TechCrunch
Events
Startup Battlefield
StrictlyVC
Podcasts
picture
Partner Content
TechCrunch Brand Studio
Crunchboard
touch Us
The U.S. innovate and the EU regulates , or so certain transatlantic bettor love to harp . We ’re not pass to get embroiled in that noise here , but two thing are clear : The axis ’s Single Market has its own finical set of rule , and quite a lot of U.S. tech colossus have run afoul of European Union competition regularization over the preceding several decades . Make of that what you will .
to begin with this month , as she make merry innailing a couple of major antitrust suit appealingness against Apple and Google , the EU ’s extroverted competition chief , Margrethe Vestager , jestingly refer to Big Tech as some of her best customer . Ouch .
We ’ve compiled a list of 10 of the braggart EU antitrust actions targeting tech to give a snapshot of the most high - profile — if not always consequential — rival skirmish between Brussels and industry heavy hitters over the retiring several decades of digital development . The list is order based on the sizing of the mulct or liability involved .
While it ’s fair to say the EU ’s antitrust tech enforcement outcome have varied , one lasting legacy is that some of these major cases served as breathing in for the bloc’sDigital Markets Act : A flagship market contestability reform that could see major tech player make harder and quicker in the arrive old age . It ’s finally Big Tech ’s prison term to buckle up .
Ireland’s tax breaks for Apple
No oneenjoyspaying their taxis , even less a demand for amateur back taxes . But by September 2018 , Apple had justfinished turn over the EU an optic - watering€13.1 billion(then worth $ 15.3 billion ) after the bloc successfully sued one of its fellow member states , Ireland , over illegal taxation breaks concede to Apple between 1991 and 2014 .
The State Aid case , which falls broadly speaking under the axis ’s competition linguistic rule , went back and forth through EU appeal courts . But inSeptember 2024 , the Court of Justice affirmed the original August 2016 Commission determination of outlaw State help .
With the top court weighing in with a last ruling ( not a referral back to a lower motor inn ) , Apple ’s legal alternative to continue challenging the decision are all but exhausted , and the one million million in underpaid taxation sitting in an EU escrow news report feel set to finally stream into Ireland ’s coffers .
Join us at TechCrunch Sessions: AI
Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI
Google’s Android restrictions on OEMs
Micromanaging the software system that peregrine equipment makers could bundle with its operating scheme , Android — to get its own wares in front of Android users disregarding of the computer hardware they picked — got Google into costly hot water in the EU in recent class . Around $ 5 billion worth of antitrust heat , in fact . The2018 Commission decisionsanctioning it for abuse a dominant position was , and still is , a record - bust penalty for this category of competition abuse .
The original EU€4.34 billionfine on Google was revise down slightly , to € 4.125 billion , in a September 2022appeal decision by the General Court . However , the judge mostly upheld the original Commission decision , rejecting Google ’s bid to overturn the enforcement .
Google’s self-preferencing with Shopping
Back in June 2017,Google was strike with another(at the time ) record - breaking€2.42 billionpenalty for ill-use a dominant position — this one in relation to how it operate its product comparison service , Google Shopping ( previously brand Google Product Search and , before that , the pun - tastic Froogle ) .
The axis found that Google had not only unfairly favor its own ( eponymic ) patronize comparison servicing in organic hunting results , a market the tech giant has almost whole sewn up in Europe , but had also actively kick downstairs rival comparison service . The multi - billion - euro mulct ensue — worth around $ 2.73 billion at the time it was announced — and was subsequently swear in aSeptember 2024decision by the EU ’s top royal court .
Apple’s anti-steering on iOS music streaming
The EU furcate into a contender theory of harm that accused Apple of consumer exploitation , rather than exclusionary conduct , in this long - run enforcement against Apple ’s conduct in the music rain cats and dogs grocery on iOS .
The axis ’s contention division changed mainsheet a few times , as it investigated iOS developer complaints against the App Store wheeler dealer . But in March 2024 it ended uphitting Apple with a€1.84 billionfine(around $ 2 billion ) for banish developer from telling iPhone users about cheaper deals usable outside Apple ’s store . The vast bulk of the financial sanction — a full € 1.8 billion — was apply on top of the EU ’s received harm computation , which the bloc said it hoped would act as a deterrent . ( Without it , the amercement would have been a bare € 40 million — or a “ parking tag ” level penalization for Big Tech . )
Google’s AdSense restrictions
Yet another billion+ antitrust penaltyhit Google for revilement of dominancein March 2019 , when the bloc sanctioned the company over its search advertizement brokering business . The Commission find it had used restrictive clauses in contract bridge with customers between 2006 and 2016 in a bid to crush out rival advertizement broker . A punishment of€1.49 billion(or around $ 1.7 billion ) was duly imposed .
However , in September 2024 , despite upholding the absolute majority of the Commission ’s finding , the EU ’s General Courtannulled the AdSense decisionin its entirety over errors in how the Commission assessed the duration of Google ’s contract . It remain to be seen whether the EU will invoke .
The Commission still has another ( open ) suit probe Google ’s adtech stack more loosely , which could also make the AdSense event look like low beer . Margrethe Vestagerwarned last yearthat if the suspected violations are confirmed , a geomorphologic detachment ( i.e. , breaking up Google ) may be the only viable redress .
PC monitor and TV parts price-fixing cartel
In 2012 , the EU turn over down a total of€1.47 billionin amercement ina cartels caserelated to the sale of components used in the fabrication of calculator monitor and TVs . A raft of electronics heavyweight were caught up in the enforcement over terms - mending of cathode electron beam tube ( CRT ) between 1996 and 2006 . The components were used in computer monitors and TVs in the pre - flatscreen era , and the Commission found that computer hardware Almighty had colluded to fix prices . Fines were handed down to seven electronics goliath that were require in either one or two CRT corporate trust , including LG , Panasonic , Philips , Samsung , and Toshiba .
Chipmaker Intel’s exclusionary practices
depart further back in sentence , we go far in May 2009 , at what was thena record€1.06 billionantitrust penalty for chipmaker Intelafter the EU detect that the U.S. monster had abuse a predominant side to exclude rival AMD . Intel had been paying estimator manufacturers and retailer to postpone , strike down , or otherwise nullify using or selling AMD ’s product , and the EU found these exclusionary practice session breached competition dominion .
The chipmaker appeal the EU ’s enforcement with some success over the following ten of legal argument . In 2017 , the Court of Justiceset aside an earlier rulingby a lower tourist court and mention the case back to the General Court , which went on to invalidate part of the Commission ’s determination , while allowing that some of Intel ’s pattern had been improper .
The Court quash the original fine in its entireness ( a decisionlater upheld by the CJEU ) , owing to uncertainty over the penalty calculation , butlast yearthe EU reimpose a fine of € 376.36 million on Intel — for the “ naked restrictions ” that the Court had upheld . Appeals still growl on , so where this enforcement finally stop up stay on to be seen .
Qualcomm’s deal with Apple for mobile chips
In early 2018 , it wasmobile chipmaker Qualcomm ’s turnto be bump off with a beefy EU antitrust penalty:€997 million(or around $ 1.23 billion at the fourth dimension ) . The countenance was for abuse of a prevailing stance between 2011 and 2016 . The enforcement focused on Qualcomm ’s relationship with Apple , and the EU decided it had shut rival chipmakers out of the marketplace for supplying LTE baseband chipsets by paying Apple to entirely use its poker chip for iPhones and iPads .
However , Qualcomm appealed the decision , and in June 2022 the EU General Courtruled in its favour , rejecting the Commission ’s analysis and also finding some procedural faults with its eccentric . The EUlater confirmedit would not invoke the judgment , so this is one goodly antitrust penalty that did n’t make it beyond the headlines .
The bloc has had safe fortune in a separate ( longer - running ) antimonopoly procedure against the chipmaker : In September 2024 , the General Courtlargely carry on a Commission penaltyon Qualcomm of just under $ 270 million in a subject related to predatory pricing .
Microsoft’s anti-competitive licensing practices
We have to roll back the clock all the way to March 2004 to come at the EU contribute Microsoft a spanking for abusing a rife position with its Windows operating system . The then - record€497 millionpenalty ( around $ 794 million ) would be worth closer to € 762 million ( or ~$1.3 billion ) today , factoring in Eurozone pretentiousness ( perthis puppet ) .
The original charge trigger the probe into Microsoft ’s licensing and royalty practice dated all the way back to 1993 . The EU ’s enforcement on Microsoft wasupheld on appeal . As well as handing down a fine , the bloc order various remedies , admit interoperability requirements , and a 2d , heavy penalisation of € 899 million was handed down on Microsoft inFebruary 2008for noncompliance . A 2012 decision by the EU ’s General Court uphold the disobedience penalisation but abridge the point of the noncompliance fine slightly to € 860 million .
Luxembourg’s tax deal with Amazon
In anOctober 2017 State attention case , the EU argue that Luxembourg , the penis state where e - commerce giant Amazon has its regional stand , had grant the company “ undue revenue enhancement benefit ” between May 2006 and June 2014 . The Commission found that Amazon ’s corporate structure in the commonwealth had take into account it to pay four prison term less tax than other companies based there — a tax break the EU calculate was deserving around€250 million . ( The EU does not come forth fines for State Aid cause but requires any unlawfully ungathered taxis to be recouped . )
But while the Commission took issue with Luxembourg ’s method of estimate Amazon ’s nonexempt earnings in the country , unlike in the aforementioned Ireland - Apple State financial aid case , its arguments did not persist in court : In a final rulinglate last year , the EU ’s top court struck down the Commission decision , finding that the EU had not established that the Luxembourg revenue enhancement ruling was illegal State financial aid . The event ? Amazon was off the hook .
