The European Commission has just announced a fine of 2.95 billion euros to Google for abuse of dominant position in online advertising. The European executive accuses the American group of having favored its own services to the detriment of its competitors, a “self-preferencing” which distorts competition in the Adtech.
Google has 60 days to present a compliance plan, failing which, Brussels could impose an asset transfer. “At this stage, it appears that the only way for Google to effectively end its conflict of interest is a structural solution, such as the sale of part of its advertising activity,” said European Competition Commissioner Teresa Ribera.
The group immediately announced its intention to appeal. “The European Commission’s decision concerning our advertising services is bad and we will appeal,” reacted Lee-Anne Mulholland, vice-president of Google regulatory affairs. She denounced “an unjustified fine” and said that the changes required “will harm thousands of European companies by complicating their task to earn money”.
This decision comes in a context of strong transatlantic tensions. Donald Trump recently threatened to establish customs tariffs against countries whose regulations aim at American technological giants. The Commerce Commissioner, Maros Sefcovic, delayed the announcement of the sanction by a few days, while Brussels and Washington finalize a trade agreement. Friday, Teresa Ribera insisted by declaring that “we will continue to apply our rules firmly and fairly, without fear or favor, to all companies operating in Europe. »»
The fine of 2.95 billion euros is added to other sanctions pronounced the same week. The CNIL sentenced Google to 325 million euros for breaches of data protection rules in its advertising practices. In the United States, a federal jury of San Francisco imposed the payment of $ 425.7 million (362 million euros) on nearly 100 million users for affecting their privacy. Finally, Google avoided a dismantling of Chrome and Android in the United States on Tuesday, a federal judge having favored restrictions on data sharing and the prohibition of exclusivity contracts.
