The European Commission is preparing to issue the first major antitrust penalty under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) against Google, marking a new era in regulatory oversight for big tech. Sources familiar with the process say the decision is in its final draft stages and could be announced in the coming months. The case stems from allegations that Google has favored its own vertical search services—such as Google Shopping, Flights, and Hotels—over competing platforms, a practice that may now violate the DMA’s stringent “do’s and don’ts” for so-called gatekeeper platforms.
The DMA, which entered into force in 2023, defines clear obligations for large digital platforms classified as “gatekeepers.” Among other rules, these platforms are prohibited from ranking their own products more favorably than rivals, and must provide business users access to data they generate. Breaches can attract fines of up to 10 percent of a firm’s global revenue—or up to 20 percent for repeat violations. In Google's case, the Commission already imposed a separate €2.95 billion fine earlier this month under older antitrust rules for abuses in the adtech space. That precedent shows Brussels is not hesitant to wield regulatory muscle.
However, enforcement under the DMA carries deeper implications: it doesn’t just punish past behavior but is designed to reshape future conduct and architecture. If the Commission proceeds, Google would become the third U.S. tech company penalized under the new regime, joining Apple and Meta, which were fined earlier this year for unrelated DMA violations. Though Google has put forward remedial proposals in an effort to satisfy regulators, sources indicate Brussels remains unconvinced that the remedies go far enough to resolve structural concerns.
The Allegations Against Google
The heart of the DMA case concerns the degree to which Google has leveraged its dominance in general search to privilege its own specialized search products. Critics argue that services like Shopping, Flights, and Hotels have been algorithmically boosted—giving Google a self-serving advantage over independent comparison sites, travel platforms, and retailers. Under the DMA, such preferential ranking is forbidden.
Google has submitted multiple proposals to shed the appearance of bias, such as giving rivals greater visibility or separating algorithmic ranking logic. But some stakeholders—retailers, hotels, airline platforms—say those fixes are cosmetic and fall short of ensuring fair competition. They argue that unless core algorithmic control is restructured, the same tilted incentives may continue in practice.
Furthermore, sources say the Commission is probing the depth of Google’s algorithmic licensing and control over core data infrastructure, as well as auditing rights granted to independent experts and oversight mechanisms. The DMA demands not only that gatekeepers follow “fair” rules, but that their compliance be subject to meaningful accountability and transparency.
Google retains an opportunity to avoid the penalty if it submits an improved remedial proposal that satisfies Brussels’ concerns. But the window for negotiation is narrowing, and officials are reportedly cautious about prolonging delay given political pressure and expectations for demonstrable enforcement under the new framework.
Political and Strategic Dynamics
Although the Commission is ironing out its final decision, it is proceeding amid heavyweight political dynamics. The Trump administration has publicly criticized European regulators for taking aggressive action against American technology firms, warning of potential trade retaliation. That external pressure, along with rising U.S.–EU tension over tech regulation and sovereignty, may influence the timing or scope of enforcement—but insiders say Brussels is determined not to back down.
At the same time, regulators are mindful of the precedent they set. Google is a flagship case—if the DMA fine is enforced effectively, it will send a strong signal to other gatekeepers about the cost of noncompliance. It will test the Commission’s capacity to manage complex algorithmic scrutiny, legal defenses, and appeals under a more punitive regime.
From Google’s perspective, the stakes are enormous. A DMA fine would not only impose financial penalties but could force structural reforms: changes to algorithmic control, greater third-party access, audit obligations, or even divestiture of components. In public remarks, Google has criticized the DMA as burdensome and said it is calling for a “reset” of the regulation to better align with innovation realities. The company claims that its revenues and investment in AI and services face disruption from overly rigid mandates.
Moreover, the broader tech sector is watching closely. If Brussels is able to hold a major player like Google accountable under the DMA, subsequent cases may come faster and more forcefully. Already, regulators are examining Amazon, Microsoft, and ByteDance for DMA compliance, and Google’s case could accelerate investigations across the board.
Legal Hurdles and Uncertainties
Despite momentum toward a finding, legal uncertainties abound. For one, the DMA itself is new and untested; courts may be asked to interpret definitions around “core platform services,” “ranking privilege,” and the permissible scope of algorithmic change. Google is likely to mount robust challenges, arguing that the remedies demanded by Brussels are overreaching or risk distorting innovation.
Another open question is how much control Google can arguably retain over algorithmic logic without breaching DMA rules. There is debate around how deeply algorithmic changes must penetrate: can Google preserve internal architecture while offering superficial adjustments, or must it rebuild ranking frameworks to make truly unbiased comparison? The Commission must be precise in mapping obligations to avoid legal overturn.
Additionally, temporal compliance burdens complicate matters. Google may argue that sudden overhaul of ranking systems, indexing, and advertiser relations could destabilize search markets, user experience, or even ad revenue flows—thus opening room for phased transitions or carve-outs. The Commission must balance deterrence with operational pragmatism.
Finally, appeals in EU general courts and the European Court of Justice may stretch this case over years, making enforcement of structural remedies slow and contingent. The Commission’s ability to manage ongoing compliance audits, impose periodic fines, or escalate enforcement will face tests under judicial scrutiny.
Nevertheless, the looming DMA fine against Google is poised to redefine the relationship between digital gatekeepers and European regulators. If Brussels enforces stringently, Google may face a structural rethink—not just a financial hit. The case may mark the beginning of a tougher age in European digital competition law, where algorithmic power and platform dominance are no longer insulated from regulatory scrutiny.
(Source:www.globalbankingandfinance.com)
The DMA, which entered into force in 2023, defines clear obligations for large digital platforms classified as “gatekeepers.” Among other rules, these platforms are prohibited from ranking their own products more favorably than rivals, and must provide business users access to data they generate. Breaches can attract fines of up to 10 percent of a firm’s global revenue—or up to 20 percent for repeat violations. In Google's case, the Commission already imposed a separate €2.95 billion fine earlier this month under older antitrust rules for abuses in the adtech space. That precedent shows Brussels is not hesitant to wield regulatory muscle.
However, enforcement under the DMA carries deeper implications: it doesn’t just punish past behavior but is designed to reshape future conduct and architecture. If the Commission proceeds, Google would become the third U.S. tech company penalized under the new regime, joining Apple and Meta, which were fined earlier this year for unrelated DMA violations. Though Google has put forward remedial proposals in an effort to satisfy regulators, sources indicate Brussels remains unconvinced that the remedies go far enough to resolve structural concerns.
The Allegations Against Google
The heart of the DMA case concerns the degree to which Google has leveraged its dominance in general search to privilege its own specialized search products. Critics argue that services like Shopping, Flights, and Hotels have been algorithmically boosted—giving Google a self-serving advantage over independent comparison sites, travel platforms, and retailers. Under the DMA, such preferential ranking is forbidden.
Google has submitted multiple proposals to shed the appearance of bias, such as giving rivals greater visibility or separating algorithmic ranking logic. But some stakeholders—retailers, hotels, airline platforms—say those fixes are cosmetic and fall short of ensuring fair competition. They argue that unless core algorithmic control is restructured, the same tilted incentives may continue in practice.
Furthermore, sources say the Commission is probing the depth of Google’s algorithmic licensing and control over core data infrastructure, as well as auditing rights granted to independent experts and oversight mechanisms. The DMA demands not only that gatekeepers follow “fair” rules, but that their compliance be subject to meaningful accountability and transparency.
Google retains an opportunity to avoid the penalty if it submits an improved remedial proposal that satisfies Brussels’ concerns. But the window for negotiation is narrowing, and officials are reportedly cautious about prolonging delay given political pressure and expectations for demonstrable enforcement under the new framework.
Political and Strategic Dynamics
Although the Commission is ironing out its final decision, it is proceeding amid heavyweight political dynamics. The Trump administration has publicly criticized European regulators for taking aggressive action against American technology firms, warning of potential trade retaliation. That external pressure, along with rising U.S.–EU tension over tech regulation and sovereignty, may influence the timing or scope of enforcement—but insiders say Brussels is determined not to back down.
At the same time, regulators are mindful of the precedent they set. Google is a flagship case—if the DMA fine is enforced effectively, it will send a strong signal to other gatekeepers about the cost of noncompliance. It will test the Commission’s capacity to manage complex algorithmic scrutiny, legal defenses, and appeals under a more punitive regime.
From Google’s perspective, the stakes are enormous. A DMA fine would not only impose financial penalties but could force structural reforms: changes to algorithmic control, greater third-party access, audit obligations, or even divestiture of components. In public remarks, Google has criticized the DMA as burdensome and said it is calling for a “reset” of the regulation to better align with innovation realities. The company claims that its revenues and investment in AI and services face disruption from overly rigid mandates.
Moreover, the broader tech sector is watching closely. If Brussels is able to hold a major player like Google accountable under the DMA, subsequent cases may come faster and more forcefully. Already, regulators are examining Amazon, Microsoft, and ByteDance for DMA compliance, and Google’s case could accelerate investigations across the board.
Legal Hurdles and Uncertainties
Despite momentum toward a finding, legal uncertainties abound. For one, the DMA itself is new and untested; courts may be asked to interpret definitions around “core platform services,” “ranking privilege,” and the permissible scope of algorithmic change. Google is likely to mount robust challenges, arguing that the remedies demanded by Brussels are overreaching or risk distorting innovation.
Another open question is how much control Google can arguably retain over algorithmic logic without breaching DMA rules. There is debate around how deeply algorithmic changes must penetrate: can Google preserve internal architecture while offering superficial adjustments, or must it rebuild ranking frameworks to make truly unbiased comparison? The Commission must be precise in mapping obligations to avoid legal overturn.
Additionally, temporal compliance burdens complicate matters. Google may argue that sudden overhaul of ranking systems, indexing, and advertiser relations could destabilize search markets, user experience, or even ad revenue flows—thus opening room for phased transitions or carve-outs. The Commission must balance deterrence with operational pragmatism.
Finally, appeals in EU general courts and the European Court of Justice may stretch this case over years, making enforcement of structural remedies slow and contingent. The Commission’s ability to manage ongoing compliance audits, impose periodic fines, or escalate enforcement will face tests under judicial scrutiny.
Nevertheless, the looming DMA fine against Google is poised to redefine the relationship between digital gatekeepers and European regulators. If Brussels enforces stringently, Google may face a structural rethink—not just a financial hit. The case may mark the beginning of a tougher age in European digital competition law, where algorithmic power and platform dominance are no longer insulated from regulatory scrutiny.
(Source:www.globalbankingandfinance.com)