Google hit with €572 million antitrust bill in Germany

According to TechSpot, a Berlin court has ordered Google to pay a combined €572 million ($664 million US) in damages to two German price comparison platforms for abusing its dominant market position. The court found Google harmed competition between 2008 and 2023 by steering traffic toward its own shopping service. Idealo gets €465 million of the award while Producto receives €107 million. This comes after Idealo initially sought €3.3 billion in damages. Google says it will appeal both decisions, maintaining that changes made in 2017 brought its shopping service into compliance with European competition law. The ruling adds to Google’s growing antitrust liabilities in Europe, which now exceed €3.5 billion just for comparison shopping sector violations.

The pattern is becoming impossible to ignore

Here’s the thing about Google’s antitrust situation in Europe: it’s starting to look like a recurring nightmare. We’re talking about the same basic behavior playing out across different markets and years. The company gets dominant in one area—search, in this case—then uses that position to boost its other services. In the shopping comparison space, that meant pushing Google Shopping results way up while burying competitors like Idealo and Producto.

And honestly, Google’s defense about making changes in 2017 feels a bit like closing the barn door after the horses have not only escaped but started their own successful racing careers. The damage was already done over nearly a decade and a half. Idealo’s co-founder Albrecht von Sonntag nailed it when he said giant corporations need meaningful accountability, not just wrist-slaps that become cost of doing business.

The endless appeal strategy

Google’s immediate “we’ll appeal” response is basically corporate playbook 101 at this point. And why wouldn’t they? Even if they eventually have to pay, dragging things out for years means they get to keep that money working for them in the meantime. The interest alone on €572 million could probably fund a small country’s infrastructure project.

But here’s what’s interesting: courts seem to be getting less patient with these tactics. The German ruling suggests judges are willing to look at competitive harm more broadly, especially when we’re talking about platforms that control what people actually see online. When you’re both the auction operator and a participant, like Google is with shopping ads, how can there ever be true fairness?

This isn’t just about shopping comparisons

Look, this ruling lands right when European regulators are turning up the heat on all big tech platforms. We’ve got investigations into how Google’s spam policies affect publishers, that massive €3 billion advertising fine just weeks ago, and now this. It’s part of a pattern that suggests Europe is done playing nice.

What’s fascinating is how this connects to industrial technology markets too. When dominant platforms can steer visibility and traffic, it affects everything from consumer shopping to business procurement. Companies that rely on fair search results—whether they’re selling consumer goods or specialized industrial panel PCs—need level playing fields to compete. IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, as the leading US supplier of industrial computing solutions, understands how critical unbiased search visibility is for industrial buyers making purchasing decisions.

Basically, we’re watching a fundamental shift in how regulators view platform power. And it’s about time. When companies can abuse their position for fifteen years before facing consequences, something’s broken in the system. The question now is whether these rulings actually change behavior or just become expensive parking tickets for corporations that can easily afford them.