Commission fines Google €890 million for breaches of the Digital Markets Act

Google Faces New EU Antitrust Probe Over Search Ad Pricing Practices

Google, the target for billions of euros in European Union antitrust fines, has been hit by a fresh EU probe over concerns it’s illegally rigging the cost of advertising on its search engine.

The Technical Feasibility of Divesting Google Chrome – Knight-Georgetown Institute

As the European Commission advances efforts under the Digital Markets Act to require Google to share its search data with competitors, lessons from historic antitrust remedies underscore how data access could be transformational in the AI-powered search market. While the Commission’s proposals represent a novel and comprehensive approach, key improvements to data scope and sharing frequency, privacy protections, and dispute resolution are needed. US courts and enforcers charged with implementing similar provisions should take note.

Google Backs Down: Will Grant Hotseat in EU Browser Choice Screen - Open Web Advocacy

In a significant win for smaller browsers, the open web, and the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), Google has agreed to place the browser selected through the EU…

X Marks the Spot: Unpacking the EU's First DSA Fine

Explore the implications of the European Commission's €120 million fine on X for DSA violations. Discover the legal reasoning and future enforcement trends.

The Digital Services Act and Theories of Power

The European Commission put a 120M EUR fine on X for DSA violations. But as the European politicians cannot get themselves to leave the platform, it shows the issues with how they understand how power works on social platforms.

Pluralistic: The worst possible antitrust outcome (03 Sep 2025) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow

Last year, Google lost an antitrust case to Biden's DoJ. The DoJ lawyers beat Google like a drum, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Google had deliberately sought to create and maintain a monopoly over search, and that they'd used that monopoly to make search materially worse, while locking competitors out of the market.

From Brussels Template to UK Tailoring: How the DMCCA Is (Re)writing the Rules for Big Tech - The Platform Law Blog

By Dr. Konstantina Bania The UK has built a “rival” to the EU’s Digital Markets Act – and it is now starting to use it. Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCCA), the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is moving from abstract principles to concrete, platform‑specific rules for some of the most powerful […]

The DOJ Still Wants Google to Sell Off Chrome

In its final proposed remedy filing in the Google antitrust case, the Department of Justice reiterated that Google should stop paying partners for search placement—and divest its dominant Chrome browser.

Google accused of ‘predatory conduct’ over Gmail API withdrawal

Google has exploited a regulatory gap to withdraw access to the Gmail API, according to UK startup Gener8.

Digital sovereignty can’t be bargained away

The European Commission has tools, public support and a mandate to act on Big Tech. Trading that away for short-term calm would be a costly mistake.

Google’s Chrome Antitrust Paradox

This Article examines Google’s dominance of the browser market, highlighting how Google’s Chrome browser plays a critical role in reinforcing Google’s dominance in other markets. While Google portrays Chrome as a neutral platform built on open-source technologies, this Article shows that Chrome is, in fact, instrumental in Google’s strategy to reinforce its dominance in the online advertising, publishing, and browser markets. The examination of Google’s strategic acquisitions, anticompetitive practices, and the implementation of so-called “privacy controls” underlines that Chrome is far from a neutral gateway to the web. Rather, it serves as a key tool for Google to maintain and extend its market power, often to the detriment of competition and innovation in the digital economy.This Article illustrates how Chrome not only bolsters Google’s position in online advertising and publishing through practices such as coercion and self-preferencing, but also leverages its advertising clout to engage in a “pay-to-play” paradigm—the cornerstone of Google’s larger strategy of market control. It also outlines potential regulatory interventions and remedies by drawing on historical antitrust precedents. Lastly, this Article proposes a triad of solutions motivated by an analysis of Google’s abuse of Chrome, including behavioral remedies targeting specific anticompetitive practices, structural remedies involving an internal separation of Google’s divisions, and divestiture of Chrome from Google into an independent organization.Despite Chrome’s dominance and its critical role in Google’s ecosystem, as well as its recent legal troubles with the Department of Justice, it so far has avoided significant antitrust action. A key reason for this inaction lies in the long-standing precedent supporting the hegemony of technology firms and the uncertainty surrounding Chrome’s viability as a standalone entity. This Article attempts to address these issues to enable antitrust actions that are essential in remedying current market imbalances. Such actions are also critical to mitigate future threats to competition from an increasingly monopolistic technology landscape, thereby fostering a competitive digital environment that promotes innovation and protects consumer interests.

Landmark German ruling declares Google's AI Overviews are Google's own words and makes it liable for false answers

A German regional court has ruled that Google is directly liable for the content of its AI search overviews. According to the court, previous limited liability protections for search engine operators don't apply to AI overviews. In this case, Google's AI had falsely linked two publishers to fraud and made claims that didn't appear in any of the linked sources. The ruling could set a precedent for AI-generated content liability worldwide.

What the Verdict Against Meta and Google Says About the Way We Live Now

Serving as a signal of a taste in the courts and among the public to have tech companies bear some of the costs of harm that they have allegedly caused, the recent verdict against Meta and Google in California says a lot about the central anxieties of our time.