Google has been ordered by a Berlin court to pay approximately €465 million ($542 million) in damages to the German price comparison platform Idealo for abusing its dominant market position. The ruling comes after the court found Google engaged in anti-competitive practices that affected price comparison services in Germany. Both rulings can still be appealed, according to a court spokesperson.
Additional Damages for Producto
In addition to Idealo, the company behind another German price comparison site, Producto, will receive €107 million in damages. These decisions mark a significant legal challenge for Google in Europe, highlighting ongoing scrutiny of its market behavior, Reuters news report said.
Idealo Vows to Continue Legal Action
Idealo, a subsidiary of the German media group Axel Springer, emphasized its commitment to fighting against market abuse. Co-founder Albrecht von Sonntag stated, “We will continue to fight – because market abuse must have consequences and must not become a lucrative business model that pays off despite fines and damages payments.”
Idealo had initially demanded 3.3 billion euros, including interest, claiming that Google had exploited its dominant market position for price comparisons between 2008 and 2023.
Google Plans to Appeal
Google has rejected the rulings and announced plans to appeal. A company spokesperson highlighted that changes implemented in 2017 ensured rival comparison shopping services could compete fairly with Google Shopping on search results pages.
“The changes we made in 2017 have proven successful without intervention from the European Commission,” the spokesperson said. “The number of price comparison sites in Europe using the Shopping Unit designed by the remedy has increased from seven to 1,550.”
Implications for the European Tech Market
The ruling underscores increasing regulatory and legal scrutiny of U.S. tech giants in Europe, especially regarding market dominance and fair competition. This case serves as a warning to companies about the risks of anti-competitive practices and the importance of maintaining a level playing field for all market participants.
Baburajan Kizhakedath
