Topics
late
AI
Amazon
Image Credits:David Paul Morris/Bloomberg / Getty Images
Apps
Biotech & Health
Climate
Image Credits:David Paul Morris/Bloomberg / Getty Images
Cloud Computing
Commerce
Crypto
endeavor
EVs
Fintech
fundraise
convenience
game
Government & Policy
ironware
Layoffs
Media & Entertainment
Meta
Microsoft
Privacy
Robotics
security department
societal
Space
Startups
TikTok
transferral
speculation
More from TechCrunch
consequence
Startup Battlefield
StrictlyVC
Podcasts
Videos
Partner Content
TechCrunch Brand Studio
Crunchboard
Contact Us
Google has once again lose in its bidding to overrule a2017 antitrust decisionby the European Commission . The bloc happen its shopping comparability service of process had interrupt rivalry rule — hitting Alphabet , Google ’s parent , with an at - the - meter record - break away € 2.42 billion penalty ( around $ 2.7 billion at current exchange rates ) and ordinate changes to how it operates the avail .
Google appealed the determination and , inNovember 2021 , the General Court of the European Union largely dismissed the challenge . It confirmed that ego - preferencing its own shopping overhaul in oecumenical search results was anti - competitive , harm rival shopping compare table service , and upholding the Commission ’s penalty . However , the Margaret Court did find oneself the Commission had not demonstrate that Google ’s behaviour could have had anticompetitive effects on the market for general search service as a whole — hence annulling that dowery of the determination .
Google appealed against the EU ’s decision a 2nd sentence , petition the EU ’s highest courtyard — the Court of Justice of the European Union ( CJEU ) — which on Tuesday pass on down another ruling that wo n’t be to the search goliath ’s wish .
The CJEU agreed with the General Court ’s analysis . “ [ I]n light of the gadget characteristic of the market and the specific circumstances of the showcase , Google ’s conduct was discriminatory and did not fall within the CRO of competition on the merits , ” the court wrote in a pressing release .
gloss on the Google Shopping type at a imperativeness conference this sunup local fourth dimension , the EU ’s competition chief Margrethe Vestager dubbed it “ a landmark in the history of regulatory military action against Big Tech company . ”
“ It was one of the first substantial antitrust cases brought by a contest agency against a major digital society and I remember this case marked a polar shift in how digital caller were regulated and also perceive , ” she suggested .
In further comment on the CJEU ruling , she state :
Join us at TechCrunch Sessions: AI
Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI
The Court of Justice confirm that , in certain circumstances , the favorable discourse of its own servicing by a rife society can be a breach of Article 9(2 ) of the European treaty . This of import judgment corroborate the Commission ’s approach shot to such practices .
We call them ego preferencing . Of of course a rife company , as any other party , [ is ] liberal to introduce in all fields but in doing so they should compete on the merits of their innovation . However , they can not lean on the competitive advantage that they hold because of their market power .
Going forward , the Commission will , of course , ensure that the principle enshrined in this judgment — which is now net — is upheld to the benefit of all European consumers .
get through for a response to the CJEU opinion , Google spokesman Rory O’Donoghue emailed a company statement in which it verbalize disappointment . “ We are disappointed with the decision of the Court . This judgment relates to a very specific set of facts . Wemade changesback in 2017 to comply with the European Commission ’s decision . Our access has workedsuccessfullyfor more than seven year , give gazillion of clicks for more than 800 comparison shopping services . ”
This could be the end of the route for Google ’s appeal against the Shopping decision , as it may only seek to challenge the CJEU on a point of natural law .
The tech giant has filed several other appeals against additional Commission antitrust decision . InSeptember 2022 , it lost another major prayer when the EU ’s General Court for the most part confirm the axis ’s € 4.34 billion antimonopoly fine interrelate to how the tech giant operates its Android mobile platform .
CJEU: Apple owes $15B in Irish back taxes and fees
In disjoined CJEU news , the court handed down another major determination in the Commission ’s favor on Tuesday .
This one loops in Apple as it ’s related to to a 2016 decision by the bloc that Apple benefited from illegal taxation fault in Ireland , between 1991 and 2014 , and should have paid billions more in taxes . BySeptember 2018 , the iPhone Almighty had had to wire $ 15 billion in back taxes and penalization to the EU ( to be held in escrow until the conclusion of any legal challenges ) . However , inJuly 2020Apple ( and Ireland ) won an appeal when the General Court annulled the EU ’s decision .
The Commissionappealed that reversaland on Tuesday the CJEU set aside the General Court ’s perspicacity , determination — to the opposite — that Ireland grant Apple unlawful aid , which the country is required to convalesce .
Apple and Ireland may only appeal the CJEU decision on a period of law .
Reached for comment on the State Aid ruling , Apple spokesman Tom Parker e-mail TechCrunch a statement in which the company expresses disappointment and seek to frame the issue as not one of unpaid taxes but rather an issue of where taxes are pay . The tech whale also accuses the EU of seeking to “ retroactively deepen the rules . ”
“ This case has never been about how much tax we bear , but which government we are required to pay it to , ” it compose . “ We always give all the taxation we owe wherever we manoeuver and there has never been a special deal . Apple is proud to be an railway locomotive of growth and innovation across Europe and around the world , and to consistently be one of the big taxpayer in the world . The European Commission is taste to retroactively change the rules and ignore that , as need by external tax law , our income was already open to taxis in the US . We are disappointed with today ’s decision as previously the General Court reviewed the fact and categorically annulled this case . ”
In her own remarks on the case outcome , the Commission ’s competition chief , Vestager , expressed delight but also ball over at the profits — admitting the EU had taken legal endangerment to bring this entreaty .
“ I had organize for stiff upper sassing , facing a possible defeat , ” she said . “ But , you know , it was the win that made me cry . Because it is very important . It ’s very authoritative to show European taxpayers that , once in a while , tax justness can be done . ”
enquire during the press conference whether she wanted to institutionalize a message to Big Tech following the two rulings , Vestager respond :
The real messenger today is the Court of Justice — confirming what we did , which was challenged .
The message from our choices that we have made , when we suppose that we have a case that we can prove … we will press on . So I think the message is that we will proceed to do this . We will continue to push so that when we find abuses of dominant position we will go after it .
I hope that the reading of today ’s judgment is also a reading tell maybe it ’s good to be a compliant company ?
Because one of the thing that I ’ve been wondering , in all these years , is I have n’t had just one Google case , not just two , not just three ; we’renow on the fourth . We havereoccurring cases with Amazon . We now havea Facebook casethat is ongoing . It ’s the most admired , amazing , worthful companies on this planet , and yet , they are my most loyal client .
So if there is a message , well , it ’s easier and honest to be compliant — also because it challenges yourself and push you to be more innovative than you would otherwise have been .
This paper was updated with gossip from Google and Vestager ’s remarks at the Commission ’s press group discussion .
