In Brussels this week, the General Court of the European Union reviewed a case involving Google and the European Commission. The court reduced the imposed fine to 4.125 billion euros from an initial 4.343 billion. The decision continues to move through the legal process, with room for appeal before the EU Court of Justice, the bloc’s highest court.
The European Commission had penalized Google for pressuring Android device manufacturers to preinstall the Google Search engine and the Google Chrome browser in exchange for access to the Google Play Store license. This arrangement was challenged as an effort to cement Google’s dominant position in mobile software by shaping users choices at the device level.
A second line of concern involved actions that prevented manufacturers from offering devices that shipped with alternative Android forks. Such restrictions limited the ability of other versions of the operating system to run on phones and tablets, narrowing options for consumers and developers alike.
A third issue centered on how Google manages advertising revenue with device makers and mobile network operators. The Commission argued that this arrangement discouraged the installation of competing search engines and apps, reducing market contestability for Google.
In its ruling, the General Court acknowledged arguments that requiring the installation of Google Search and Google Chrome could create a status quo bias. This occurs when users lean toward apps already present on their devices, unless rivals provide a sufficiently offset advantage. The court confirmed that the Commission’s analysis on this point remained valid, noting that none of Google’s criticisms weakened the Commission’s overarching assessment.
Abuse of agreements
The judges also affirmed that the Commission could reasonably consider the impact of ad revenue arrangements that linked non installation of competing apps to exclusivity deals. The court found that such agreements could still influence competition in the markets for general call services and related services.
However, the decision rejected Brussels’ assertion that these deals were exploited in a way that would allow Google to block competition on the merits. The court concluded that the evidence did not fully support that claim, leaving questions about potential market effects unresolved.
The General Court noted that Brussels had not shown enough support for the finding that a large share of national markets for general call services were affected by these arrangements. It also pointed to certain logic gaps in the Commission’s equally effective competition test, which assessed how a rival could compete if its app were preinstalled on devices.
Further, the court scrutinized the Commission’s estimates of costs attributed to such a competitor, the potential to preinstall apps, and the revenues that could be generated given the age and mix of devices in circulation. It also considered how Google’s restrictions on selling devices with alternative Android systems could strengthen Google’s position by limiting the variety offered to users and affecting any subsequent competition in search services.
Additionally, the court dismissed Google’s argument that Apple or BlackBerry could compete on equal footing. It concluded that their operating systems did not constitute the same market given Android’s open source nature, which allowed broader licensing to device makers. The court also rejected Google’s assertion that this case violated the right to defense, indicating that the arguments presented did not demonstrate a procedural breach that would overturn the Commission’s conclusions.
As the case continues through the EU judiciary, observers note that the court’s decision highlights the tension between promoting competition and recognizing the practical dynamics of preinstalled software on popular platforms. The outcome will influence how regulators assess preinstallation obligations and exclusive agreements in digital markets across Europe and beyond, shaping future enforcement in similar cases. The decision demonstrates that even large technology platforms must carefully navigate the balance between innovation, consumer choice, and fair competition in a rapidly evolving ecosystem. For now, both sides await further judicial steps as the broader implications for Android device licensing and app ecosystems become clearer in subsequent rulings. This ongoing dialogue helps clarify how antitrust rules apply to platform owners and their strategies in a mobile-first world.