Brussels' campaign against Google's market behaviour has reached a stage that could prove financially consequential for the company, as private litigation proliferates across Europe following the continent's first enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (DMA).
The $1 billion fine imposed under the DMA for self-preferencing on Google Play - and for blocking app developers from directing users to cheaper payment options outside the store - has catalysed a number of smaller rivals to file damage claims. Lawyers and litigation financiers say suits are already underway in around half a dozen countries and that additional cases are being prepared.
Legal specialists view the DMA decision as a fresh basis for private litigation that could seek up to $10 billion in aggregate damages. Thomas Hoppner, a partner at Geradin Partners who advised German price comparison service Idealo in a separate market abuse action, said the ruling is likely to spur more claims. "I think this will trigger a new wave of litigation," he said.
How the DMA ruling is being used by plaintiffs
The DMA finding of ongoing wrongdoing is being relied upon by plaintiffs as evidence that Google continued to prefer its own services, which some competitors argue damaged their traffic and revenue. That pattern of self-favouring is already the basis for earlier legal battles under existing EU competition law - notably Article 102, which prohibits abuse of a dominant position.
Hoppner noted that specialised search firms may look to recover damages not only for the period covered by the DMA but potentially for years prior under Article 102, echoing arguments made in earlier cases.
Examples of active and pending claims
Some of the disputes pre-date the DMA but have gained momentum as EU rulings and fines accumulate. In Germany, a Berlin court awarded Idealo €465 million in damages in November - the largest antitrust damages award ever handed down by a German court. Foundem in the United Kingdom pursued its claim from the outset, and Sweden's PriceRunner filed a multibillion-dollar suit in 2022 after Google exhausted its appeals.
Litigation financing firms report backing multiple groups. LitFin, for example, is backing two groups pursuing Google in Amsterdam over shopping auctions, seeking in excess of $1 billion combined, according to Matej Pardo, LitFin's chief operating officer. Italy's Moltiply Group, the operator of price comparison site Trovaprezzi.it, is seeking €2.97 billion.
Kelkoo, a UK price comparison site pursuing several claims for billions of pounds linked to Google's shopping service, said the DMA decision will influence ongoing actions. Kelkoo's CEO Richard Stables told Reuters that the DMA decision demonstrates Google is still self-referencing and that the ruling gives other claimants more ground to sue.
Google's response and the litigation timeline
Google has rejected the merit of the damage claims. A company spokesperson said the lawsuits are "brought by companies looking for a payout instead of investing in their own products."
Legal experts note that long timelines could work in Google's favour. Cases can take many years to resolve, and appeals can add significant delays. In the shopping case tied to Google's conduct beginning in 2008, nearly two decades elapsed between the alleged abuses and the exhaustion of appeals. LitFin's Pardo warned that plaintiffs may face waits of several years, possibly up to eight, before final outcomes and recovery.
In the PriceRunner litigation, a Stockholm court in July ordered Google to pay roughly $1.97 billion including interest - a result Klarna welcomed but acknowledged will likely take time to become final and enforceable. Pontus Scherp, counsel for Klarna, said he expects appeals to extend the process by more than a year, and likely for several years.
Regulatory context and cumulative penalties
The DMA fine is the latest in a string of EU enforcement actions against Alphabet's search business. Over the past decade, regulators have imposed around €10.4 billion in fines on Google for anticompetitive practices, and related rulings have already produced multi-billion-euro penalties. Last month, Google lost a protracted legal fight over a record €4.1 billion fine tied to its use of the Android operating system to block rivals.
When Google introduced its own comparison shopping service into search results in 2008, traffic to competing comparison sites dropped sharply. That decline spurred complaints and a subsequent EU probe that resulted in a €2.42 billion fine in 2017; Google challenged that ruling but ultimately lost at the EU's highest court last year.
Plaintiffs' views on the DMA's effectiveness
Marco Pescarmona, chairman of Moltiply Group, said the recent DMA decision strengthens damage claims but questioned whether Brussels will be willing to deploy the law fully if non-compliance persists. He described the DMA as "a very good piece of legislation" and suggested that authorities may be reluctant to use it aggressively despite its potency.
Litigation funders and claimants nonetheless continue to prepare and file suits across Europe. Several legal teams and financiers told Reuters that more claims are in preparation and have not yet been submitted to courts.
Market implications and next steps
The private litigation wave follows a period in which Google has been increasing investment in artificial intelligence, a shift that recently left Alphabet with negative free cash flow in the second quarter for the first time since it became a public company. Plaintiffs seeking damages argue that regulatory rulings and court awards validate their claims of sustained self-preferencing that harmed their businesses.
Google may still challenge the DMA fine in court, and the company benefits from lengthy legal timetables that can delay final resolutions. Nevertheless, the combination of the DMA finding and existing EU rulings has already encouraged a range of competitors to pursue damages, with potential claims across several jurisdictions and aggregating into the multibillion-euro range.
How many of these claims will ultimately succeed, and how quickly any awarded damages could be collected, remains an open question that will unfold through protracted litigation and appeals.