EU Court of Justice Finally Upholds Google's 4.1 Billion Euro Fine in Android Case
On July 2, the Court of Justice of the European Union rejected Google's final appeal and finally upheld a fine of 4.125 billion euros for abuse of a dominant position in the Android market. The ruling in case C-738/22 P closes proceedings that lasted nearly eight years and leaves Google with no further avenue for appeal.
How the case developed
In July 2018, the European Commission fined Google 4.34 billion euros for requiring smartphone manufacturers, starting in 2011, to preinstall Google Search and Chrome as a condition for obtaining a Play Store license, and for prohibiting the sale of devices with unauthorized versions of Android through anti-fragmentation agreements. In September 2022, the General Court of the EU largely upheld the Commission's decision, annulling only the part concerning payments to manufacturers for refusing to preinstall competing search services, and reduced the fine to 4.125 billion euros. Google appealed to the Court of Justice, the last available instance.
In June 2025, Advocate General Juliane Kokott issued an opinion recommending that Google's appeal be dismissed in full, noting that the company's arguments comparing itself to a hypothetical equally efficient competitor were unrealistic given Google's dominance across several markets in the Android ecosystem simultaneously and the resulting network effects. Such opinions are advisory in nature, but the court follows them in most cases, and the final ruling has now confirmed that recommendation.
The substance of the claims
The Commission identified three types of violations. First, Google required device manufacturers to install Google Search and Chrome as a single bundle with Play Store, depriving users of choice and blocking access for competing search and browser services. Second, anti-fragmentation agreements prohibited manufacturers who wanted a license for Google apps from selling devices with unapproved versions of Android, which suppressed the development of alternative versions of the system. Third, with some manufacturers and mobile operators, Google entered into agreements to share advertising revenue in exchange for not preinstalling competing search services. This last episode was found to be excessive following the 2022 review and was not recalculated.
Positions of the parties
Google maintained that Android's openness created more choice rather than less, and that thousands of businesses in Europe and worldwide benefited from a free operating system. The Commission and the courts consistently rejected this argument, pointing out that it was precisely the bundling of services and the ban on alternative versions of Android that allowed Google to keep users on its search engine regardless of the quality of competing products.
What this means for business
The ruling closes a years-long dispute and confirms that bundling mandatory applications when licensing an operating system, along with contractual restrictions on the use of alternative versions of open-source software, can be classified as abuse of a dominant position, even when the product formally remains free and open. For platform companies operating in the EU, this confirms the risk that the structure of licensing and partnership agreements will be assessed not by their formal restrictions but by their actual effect on user choice and competitors' opportunities.
The case also shows that EU courts are willing to accept actual market behavior as sufficient evidence, rather than relying only on hypothetical models such as the equally efficient competitor test, when a company already holds a dominant position across several interconnected markets.
REVERA recommendations
- Assess the terms of licensing and partnership agreements for product and service bundling, even if users formally retain the technical ability to opt out of part of the package.
- When building ecosystem products, take into account that open-source code or the absence of direct payment does not exclude the risk that restrictions will be classified as abuse of a dominant position.
- Prepare an economic justification for restrictive conditions in advance, since the hypothetical equally efficient competitor test may be found insufficient in cases of clear market dominance.
- Monitor how the Commission applies this ruling in current and new investigations against other technology companies, since it sets a standard of proof for years to come.
| REVERA's Arbitration & IT Disputes practice is ready to assess the risks of your company's existing partnership and licensing programs for compliance with antitrust law in the EU and other jurisdictions, and to prepare a position for engaging with regulators. |