The €2.95 billion fine marks a major moment in the EU’s battle to keep digital markets open and fair.
But this isn’t just about one company. It’s about who really controls the flow of money, data, and influence in the online ad ecosystem that powers nearly every website you visit.
Online advertising runs on a complex web of systems and platforms. Advertisers want to buy space, publishers want to sell it, and in between sit ad exchanges — virtual marketplaces where space on your screen is auctioned off in milliseconds.
Google controls nearly every key link in that chain:
DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) – the ad server for websites,
AdX – Google’s ad exchange,
Google Ads and DV360 – tools for advertisers.
According to the European Commission, this structure gave Google an unfair edge. AdX allegedly had privileged access to data from competing exchanges, allowing it to outbid them. Meanwhile, Google’s own buying tools steered advertisers toward AdX, making rival platforms less attractive.
In short, Google acted as referee, player, and stadium owner — all at once.
The case is based on Article 102 of the EU Treaty, which bans the abuse of market dominance. Simply being powerful isn’t illegal — but using that power to shut out competition is.
The Commission found that since at least 2014, Google had systematically limited competitors’ growth, effectively “closing” the market. Even innovative new platforms couldn’t break through.
This isn’t Google’s first run-in with EU regulators. The company has already faced billion-euro fines over search results, Android, and shopping services. The latest penalty adds pressure — but the real impact could come from what happens next: structural remedies.
The Commission argues that the problem isn’t just Google’s behavior, but its business model itself. The company operates on all sides of the ad transaction — for advertisers, publishers, and the exchange — creating unavoidable conflicts of interest.
The EU has hinted that only breaking up parts of Google’s ad business might truly solve the issue. Google has 60 days to propose changes, but EU officials made clear they expect more than small tweaks.
That raises big questions: would splitting up services really help competition, or just create chaos in a system built on scale and data integration? Some experts warn that dividing adtech could hurt efficiency — and in the end, raise costs for publishers and advertisers.
This isn’t happening in isolation. Across the Atlantic, the U.S. Department of Justice is pursuing a nearly identical case, with hearings expected to begin in September 2025. The EU’s findings could strengthen the American case and push regulators toward coordinated global action.
At the same time, Europe is building an entire framework to rein in tech giants — from the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to multiple antitrust rulings against Google, Apple, and Meta. Together, these efforts signal a clear message: no platform is too big to regulate.
If the EU succeeds, the biggest winners could be the advertisers and media outlets that have long depended on Google’s tools. Fairer access to data and ad auctions could lower costs and increase transparency.
However, smaller players might struggle to adapt to a reshaped market. While large media groups can quickly take advantage of new opportunities, smaller publishers may need time and resources to compete effectively.
And despite new rules, Google’s sheer size and brand power could allow it to retain influence — just in subtler ways.
The fine might not be the end of the story. Under EU competition law, businesses harmed by Google’s practices can now sue for damages in national courts.
Publishers or advertisers who claim they paid inflated fees or lost access to fair competition could seek compensation — potentially amounting to billions more. Past cases show that civil claims can be even more costly than the original fine.
European Commission Vice-President Teresa Ribera summed it up: the digital market should serve people — not just platforms — and must be built on trust.
This ruling isn’t just about competition; it’s about defining what kind of digital world Europe wants. Should the market rely on corporate self-regulation, or should public institutions step in to keep it fair?
Supporters of the fine argue that without government action, global tech giants would dominate the internet unchecked. Critics, however, warn that overregulation could stifle innovation and make Europe less competitive against the U.S. and China.
The Google case may set the tone for the future of online advertising — and digital markets more broadly. In a world where data is the new currency, the EU is betting that transparency and fairness will be the keys to long-term innovation.
Whether that vision succeeds or backfires will shape not only the future of Google, but the entire online economy young Europeans are growing up in.
Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.
