The European Commission has fined Google €2.95 billion for abusing its dominance in online advertising technology, marking the fourth time Brussels has sanctioned the company since 2017. The decision intensifies long-running tensions with Washington and raises the prospect that Europe could move beyond fines toward forcing structural changes in Big Tech.
The Commission’s investigation concluded that Google’s AdX exchange and DFP ad platform gave preferential treatment to the company’s own services, disadvantageous to rival providers, advertisers and publishers. EU Competition Commissioner Teresa Ribera signalled that financial penalties may not be enough, saying “the only way for Google to end its conflict of interest effectively is with a structural remedy, such as selling part of its AdTech business.”
The complaint originated with the European Publishers Council, which argues that Google’s dominance in advertising squeezes already fragile news revenues. Its executive director Angela Mills Wade has called for break-up orders rather than fines, describing the Commission’s latest move as “a first step, not a solution.”
The penalty drew an immediate backlash from Washington. President Donald Trump denounced the fine as “unfair” and “discriminatory,” vowing to retaliate with measures under Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974, which allows tariffs or sanctions against foreign practices deemed unjustifiable. “This administration will not allow these discriminatory actions to stand,” Trump said, adding that he would “be speaking to the European Union.”
The sharp rhetoric echoes a familiar dispute over transatlantic regulation of technology. Brussels frames its decisions as neutral enforcement of competition law, while US officials frequently view them as political targeting of American corporate champions.
Europe’s track record suggests that threats are unlikely to sway regulators. Over the past decade the Commission has fined Google more than €8 billion in three major cases: €2.42 billion for prioritising its shopping service, €4.34 billion for tying Android devices to Google apps, and €1.49 billion for restrictive AdSense contracts. While Google has appealed each fine, winning modest reductions in some cases, Brussels has never withdrawn a penalty under political or commercial pressure.
The Commission’s most famous precedent remains its long battle with Microsoft in the 2000s. After years of resistance, Microsoft was forced to pay over €1.6 billion and to introduce a “browser choice” screen for European users. That case, stretching more than a decade, established Brussels’ willingness to escalate from fines to behavioural remedies and, if necessary, structural interventions. Analysts note that Google now faces the same trajectory: if fines do not change behaviour, forced divestitures could follow.
The case also touches on questions that extend beyond competition law. Google’s global conduct has been criticised for shaping not just markets but information flows. Reports in June 2024 suggested the company reached an arrangement with Israel to adjust advertising visibility in ways that minimised online criticism of military actions in Gaza. Google denied outright censorship, but civil society groups argued the deal highlighted the risks of allowing one firm to dominate the distribution of information. Similar controversies, from its compliance with Chinese censorship rules in the 2000s to repeated accusations of amplifying misinformation in Western markets, have reinforced calls in Europe for remedies that go beyond monetary fines.
Such concerns strengthen the argument that fines alone cannot alter Google’s incentives. With quarterly revenues of €24 billion, multibillion-euro penalties are manageable costs of doing business. Industry groups warn that unless regulators move to restructure the digital advertising market, Google’s control will persist, undermining both competition and the independence of Europe’s media ecosystem.
For the Commission, the credibility of its broader digital strategy is at stake. Having positioned itself as the world’s most assertive technology regulator, Brussels risks appearing ineffective if companies can pay fines and carry on largely unchanged. By raising the prospect of a break-up of Google’s ad business, Ribera has signalled that structural remedies are firmly on the table.
In the near term, Google will appeal, stretching the legal process for years. Trump is likely to continue framing the dispute as a trade issue, further straining relations with Brussels at a moment when the EU and US are also clashing over tariffs and subsidies in other sectors. Yet past experience suggests the Commission will not retreat. Its history with Microsoft, and with Google itself, demonstrates an institutional willingness to endure lengthy litigation in pursuit of structural change.
For Google, the risk is no longer just another fine but the possibility of being forced to divest core parts of its advertising empire. For Brussels, the challenge is proving that Europe’s competition regime can deliver more than headlines. And for Washington, the case has become another flashpoint in the geopolitics of technology.
If history is any guide, the Commission will stay the course. Europe’s most consequential contribution to global tech regulation has been its persistence. By pressing ahead despite political threats, Brussels has shown that no company is too powerful to face antitrust scrutiny. Whether this case results in another record fine or in the forced dismantling of Google’s ad business, it will shape not only the future of one company but also the credibility of Europe’s competition policy in the digital age.
