The High Stakes Behind the EU’s €890M Google DMA Fine

The European Commission fined Google a total of 890 million euros after finding the company violated the Digital Markets Act (DMA) by favoring its own services in Google Search and restricting app developers' ability to steer users to alternative purchasing options from their apps distributed through the Play Store.

The Commission imposed a €460m fine for Google’s search-related practices and €430m for its Play Store policies. The decision follows a noncompliance investigation opened in March 2024. The Commission informed Google of its preliminary finding of the company’s noncompliance the following year. Regulators found Google noncompliant with Article 6(5) of the DMA, which states that Google cannot self-preference its own services in ranking and indexing, and mandates that the gatekeeper apply transparent, fair and non-discriminatory conditions to such ranking.

The Commission also found Google non-compliant with Article 5(4), which mandates that Google allow app developers to communicate cheaper deals and alternative distribution.

Google said it was reviewing the decision and evaluating whether to appeal. Kent Walker, president of global affairs at Google and Alphabet, criticized the ruling, saying it would harm European businesses and consumers. “Regulation should improve products, not make them worse,” he told the press.

The decision also arrives amid growing tensions between Brussels and Washington over EU regulation of US technology companies. The US administration has opposed enforcement of the DMA, with Bloomberg reporting that Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg said the law accounts for “90% of the problems” between the United States and the EU in trade negotiations.

Earlier reports suggested the Commission had delayed the decision amid concerns about a possible reaction from President Donald Trump. EU officials have denied that the timing was linked to trade tensions. A senior EU official told The Guardian “that they had no knowledge of how Trump was likely to react, insisting that it had the ‘sovereign right’ to regulate US tech companies in its own jurisdiction and the timing of the fine was not connected to tariffs.”

Teresa Ribera, Executive Vice-President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition, said that the decision is “decisive yet balanced”, adding that “the best products should succeed because they're better, not because they're owned by the company running the search engine.”

Self-preferencing

Google has a long history of self-preferencing complaints. The European Commission initially brought a competition law case against Google in 2010 for more prominently placing its own services in Google Search results. In 2017, the Commission handed a €2.42 billion fine to Google for abusing its dominance in the search market by favoring its comparison shopping service over competing services, stating that Google must adhere to the “principle of equal treatment.” The European Court of Justice threw out Google’s appeal on the matter, confirming that self-preferencing can constitute abuse of dominance in itself if the practice restricts competition on the merits.

A ban on self-preferencing was then transplanted into the DMA, and despite the long litigious history of the Google Shopping case, the Commission immediately opened the non-compliance investigation into Google. The preliminary findings of non-compliance came despite Google’s attempts to come into compliance through redesigning its results page to “boost the prominence of comparison sites for free in categories like flights, hotels, and shopping, among others.”

While Google has made changes to meet compliance for self-preferencing on Search, the Commission stated in Thursday’s ruling that the company treats its own services, such as shopping, hotels, transport and sports results, more favorably in Google Search results than similar services offered by third parties. The Commission has found that Google gives its own services more prominent treatment compared to others by displaying them at the top of Google Search results or on dedicated spaces, with enhanced visual formats and filtering mechanisms.

However, the Commission notes that Google has proposed and begun to test changes to how it displays its own free services, which will continue to be monitored by the regulator. The press release states that such changes “constitute substantial progress towards compliance.” However, the Commission will also consider how Google plans to “apply the principles of the decision to AI Overviews and AI Mode, on which dialogue will continue,” flagging the possibility for new challenges. The Initiative for Neutral Search warned that “structural, lasting change” is needed, adding that “if it fails to include AI overviews and AI Mode into the DMA’s self-preferencing ban, Google will once again be in a position to undercut fairness and restrict competition.”

What changes has Google made so far?

In Google’s most recent compliance report, the company outlines the various changes made by the gatekeeper, such as deprecating the Google Flights unit on the search results page and introducing a feature to make user clicks on entity results trigger a new result or preview page to show search results for that entity. The report gives the example of a user searching “hotels Brussels” and clicking on one of the hotel entities shown in the results (e.g., Hotel Amigo). The user will see a preview of the results that Google Search would show if the user searched for that specific hotel on Google Search.

Google states that it has not made substantial changes to its ranking of search results, which continue to be based on machine learning with human feedback. Google explains that results are rated against how relevant the results are for a given query, as well as quality of results, which are based on “expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness of the underlying content.” Google adds there are other criteria, such as context, which includes user location or Search settings, as well as webpage “usability”, such as the webpage experience.

Steering

Google has not allowed app developers to place direct links within an app to direct users to an alternate payment method and has required that developers use Google Play’s billing system, for which it charges a commission of 30% on transactions. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority noted in its own market study that “in some respects, Google’s rules have become more closely aligned with Apple over time.” They noted that from 2022, all developers selling digital goods in their apps must only use Google Play’s billing system, paying a service fee on the purchase. Google warned that app developers not compliant with the change would be removed from the Play Store.

Google’s 30% commission rate and restrictions on alternative billing have been the subject of antitrust cases outside of the DMA, including Epic Games v. Google. Epic Games, a games developer famous for producing Fortnite, filed lawsuits against both Apple and Google for engaging in monopolistic practices due to the restrictions. Epic won its case against Google, with the jury ruling that Google had engaged in anti-competitive practices for its billing system requirement. Following appeals, the case was settled, with Google allowing developers to steer users to alternative payment methods.

The Commission finds Google’s Play Store steering rules noncompliant with the DMA as Google has placed technical barriers to prevent steering, including alternative app stores, and finds that Google’s steering fees “went beyond what is considered compliant with the DMA.” While the company is allowed to receive a fee for facilitating the initial acquisition of a new customer by an app developer via Google Play, the Commission takes issue with the length of the charging period.

However, Google announced a new global fee structure which took effect from June 30, 2026, and includes the ability for developers to steer users to alternative distribution. The new terms state that even steered transactions will be subject to a service fee of 10% for recurring subscriptions, and Google has updated its Google Play Games Level Up program in which steered transactions will attract a 15% fee. The Commission has stated in the press release that these changes “constitute good progress towards compliance and will also be assessed in light of the cease and desist order of today's decision.” It is notable that the UK is conducting a parallel investigation and is actively seeking feedback regarding this new policy.

Delayed decision

The fine is significant due to its long delay and size. Despite the DMA setting out a timeline of 12 months for non-compliance decisions, the proceedings have far exceeded this. The long delay has prompted outcry from industry and civil society alike. A recent open letter signed by more than 60 organizations calls on Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to more effectively enforce the DMA, and an earlier letter by 18 organizations specifically called for a non-compliance decision to be made for the Google Search case.

It remains unclear why the decision has taken so long. Teresa Ribera, the Commissioner in charge of competition, has said that the cases are “complicated”, with reporting indicating that regulators have tried to give Google more time to propose compliance solutions. However, the DMA has come under immense geopolitical strain.

Early reactions to the fine have mostly been positive, with many acknowledging the fine’s delay and some criticism of the size of the fines. The European Consumer Organization released a statement in support of the fine but warned that the Commission must not hesitate to impose further sanctions. Thomas Höppner, a competition lawyer and DMA litigator, acknowledged the decision’s delay but noted that the decision opened the door to what could become the most significant improvement in the quality of online search in two decades.

However, Johannes Reck, CEO of GetYourGuide stated that “a fine alone” will not change Google’s long history of harmful practice, encouraging the Commission to impose “recurring fines that make compliance the better deal.” Max Bank, EU Competition Lead at Rebalance Now, in a statement to Tech Policy Press, said the fine was “the right decision” but encouraged “structural remedies, including requiring Google to divest its advertising business.” Bank also warned against delaying decisions “driven by fears from Washington”, as this “only leaves Europe vulnerable to coercion."

What happens next?

Google now has the chance to appeal the decision, with regulatory dialogue expected to continue. As indicated in the press release, the Commission is monitoring Google’s recent proposals for compliance with the Search ruling, and the Commission will consider Google’s new Play Store terms. However, Google could face periodic penalty payments of up to 5% of its average daily worldwide turnover if its proposals are deemed non-compliant and a new solution is not found within 60 days.