The European Court of Justice’s advocate‑general has recommended upholding a €4.12 billion fine imposed on Google by the European Commission, ruling that the tech giant unlawfully abused its dominant Android position by forcing manufacturers to pre‑install its search, browser and app‑store suite – a practice traced back to 2011. Though non‑binding, such opinions are followed in four out of five cases, signalling a likely defeat for Google in its appeal, with a formal verdict expected in the coming months.
Advocate‑General Juliane Kokott dismissed Google’s argument that legal assessments should be limited to comparing its conduct with that of an ‘as‑efficient competitor’. Instead, she highlighted how network effects and Android’s overwhelming market share, around 73% globally, enabled Google to impose restrictive conditions that suppressed rivals. This reinforces the EU’s broader enforcement trajectory, which has already seen fines totalling over €8 billion across multiple Google investigations.
Google voiced disappointment, warning that a final affirmation could hinder innovation and harm open platforms, creators and consumers. It maintains that Android fosters choice and supports diverse apps, yet regulators view its licensing practices, tying Android to Google tools, as a deliberate strategy to preserve dominance and limit competition .
For legal teams, tech affiliates and compliance officers operating in Europe, this case offers a critical blueprint. It underscores regulators’ readiness to interpret gatekeeper dominance through the lens of network effects and ecosystem control, not just market share. Future legal strategies will need to demonstrate genuine platform openness, decoupling key services and offering fair licensing models to third parties.
As the final ECJ ruling looms, companies should prepare for firmer regulatory expectations. Those leveraging digital ecosystems must evaluate contractual structures now, ensuring compliance with evolving EU antitrust standards. In this high‑stakes episode, Europe signals that digital platforms cannot rely on their entrenched positions to evade competition law scrutiny.
