European Commission fines Google €2.95B over abusive ad tech practices
71 comments
·September 5, 2025jjani
bee_rider
I love that you got one response calling it extortion, and another worrying that it might not have recovered all the money from the abusive practices.
The EU is threading the needle deftly here, I guess.
jaredklewis
I agree with everything you’ve said, but just would also point out that in addition to the fine, it is unclear how changing its practices is going to decrease existing (ill gotten) ad revenues going forward. Presumably these changes will hurt revenue or google would already be following them.
nonethewiser
[flagged]
devilkin
Oh, you mean, standing up against full monopolies?
perching_aix
The only good thing about blatantly uncharitable comments like this is that at least one can discard them without remorse.
null
tietjens
Legal jurisdiction of dozens of countries is extortion to you, huh?
bee_rider
Just a note, in case anyone thinks this is an insufficient punishment:
> The Commission has ordered Google (i) to bring these self-preferencing practices to an end; and (ii) to implement measures to cease its inherent conflicts of interest along the adtech supply chain. Google has now 60 days to inform the Commission about how it intends to do so.
It is on top of ordering them to fix the business practices. They can always issue more fines if Google doesn’t comply.
IMO some of us here want to see these companies hurt. That’s a non-goal for the EU, they are looking for compliance, not vengeance or something silly like that.
vader1
Very fair. Doing anything with online advertising, either as an advertiser or as a publisher, without it involving any of Google's platforms is nearly impossible.
null
juajajajaj
Regulatory fines on US tech are Europe's fastest growing sector
isodev
Oh nice. I hope other countries follow suit. It’s quite a shame Google didn’t get Chrome divested from them in the US, would’ve been a “nature is healing” moment for the web.
roscas
"would’ve been a “nature is healing” moment for the web". I wish this was true.
The healing will be when all ads and marketing will be down to zero. This companies like Facebook and Google make their billions putting on your face what you don't want or need and someone else pays them good money for that.
You may think it's too radical but we must make marketing illegal. Then fix the web.
tirant
Marketing is extremely necessary in order to have competitive markets.
We can discuss about what are the best means or even limits in the contents of advertising but making it illegal is non sense.
kyrra
This is a pipe dream. Advertising always has existed and always will. It comes and goes in different forms, but people like selling things they make or services they provide. Without a way of getting those things in front of people, nothing new could come to light.
I agree that some sites make advertisements a massive eyesore, but that's a problem that can be solved in other ways.
_aavaa_
While that’s technically true it’s not true about the current type of advertising.
The ads we see online now (and the tracking that goes with it) are what, 20 years old?
The type of marketing and advertising we live with now is a direct descendent of research and work done in the last century (thanks Bernays).
The whole point of Google was to get people answers to questions they have. Our current approach to advertising creates the problems in people’s heads only to immediately sell the solution.
eldenring
So what do you do if you have a better product and a "name brand" disadvantage? Advertising commodifies information flow instead of letting it pool with the people who already have access to it. Think of all the products that got big nowadays because they could convince VCs to fund ad spend, and saw a return for it.
I think advertising has a huge, positive, 2nd order effect on the world.
chankstein38
Yeah the reality is they'll probably just find a way to sell MORE data to make the money for these fines.
idle_zealot
> You may think it's too radical but we must make marketing illegal. Then fix the web.
I've given some thought to this, and outright banning marketing sounds basically impossible. Not just from a "good luck getting that bill passed" sense, but in a practical one. Where do you draw the line on "marketing"? Presumably my writing a glowing review of a product I like won't be banned, and online banner ads will. I'm not trying to make a "the line is blurry therefore no regulation can happen" argument, rather I think "marketing" isn't really the right line. Specifically, what ought to be banned is the sale of attention. Anything where money or favors are changing hands in order to direct attention intentionally to your product, service, etc. So you can absolutely have a marketing page extolling the virtues of your brand. You cannot pay to have that page shoved in front of people's eyeballs.
Yes, I know that this kills the ad-based funding of the current internet. Let it burn. A mix of community-run free services and commercial paid services is infinitely preferable to the "free" trash we've grown dependent on.
To make an ethical argument: quantifying and selling human attention is gross anyway. Some things just don't belong on a market.
richwater
Running a browser without an ecosystem behind it is a money pit and would be worth almost 0.
stackbutterflow
How much of the amount work needed is being done, in one way or another, to sell us stuff?
Is it really a lot of work to make and maintain a browser that shows webpages that don't sell anything? Because that almost sounds like a feature.
null
isodev
Doesn’t matter, as consumers, we’re absolutely ducked from all sides as long as our “window into the web” is fully controlled by a single corp.
jaredklewis
Is it? I use Firefox. Can’t you just not use chrome, no legal interventions required?
mupuff1234
And if Chrome were to be divested it would have just gotten swallowed up by a different corp, most likely to end up in worse hands imo.
Can you name any other company that if they owned Chrome it would've been better for the users and the web?
peterldowns
Can someone elaborate on the first accusation — "DFP favours AdX over rival Ad exchanges by e.g. informing it in advance of the best bid from competitors"? I'd be really curious to understand how it does this, like what information is actually shared that isn't also shared with other ad exchanges.
greatwhitenorth
Europe can't compete with big tech, so they write regulations/laws and fine them. Easy money.
jennyholzer
chump change
seydor
Awaiting amusing tweets (truths?) from the american baby in chief
amelius
Ok, now can we also have a three-strikes policy please, with prison sentences. Otherwise this is just the cost of doing business.
isoprophlex
Agreed. Megacorps where noone has actual honest skin in the game and every unethical decision can be paved over with money are bad news for most of us.
reorder9695
Almost 3bn euros is one hell of a cost of business though, that's approximately a euro for every 2.5 people on the planet
thinkingtoilet
Until the rich people who green light things like this go to jail it will literally never stop. Someone, somewhere needs to be responsible for policies that break the law and they need to go to jail.
jjani
It's 15% of their yearly net profit in the region. Not even revenue.
3bn sounds like a lot because we haven't gotten used to the absurd profit levels that these monstrosities have reached.
Anonyneko
For Google that's a slap on the wrist.
isodev
Google has been serving a lot of ads over the years.
udev4096
They probably made 10x that already, not a big deal
djtango
Huh? Google generated 350B in revenues in 2024...
3B is pocket change to them
mc32
How would that work? Infraction > Officers quit; new set of officers > infraction > officers quit; new set of officers…
roscas
Just another day in the office. European Commission... commission...
KebabKanaken
[flagged]
mrtksn
They should have force Google to sell to a EU buyer instead? Like the true, elected capitalist way?
richwater
[flagged]
dragonwriter
Yeah, its not like the US is also pursuing an antitrust actions against Google, including one for its abusive ad tech practices.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-prevails-l...
richwater
Lina Khan's success record is/was horrendous.
In the most recent case, Google may have "lost" but the government got nowhere near what it was asking for either.
orwin
Honestly, on this particular case that's on the judge and your current culture, not Khan. Before the 80s, Google would have been forced to separate its two ads divisions, to make some space for new companies and actors.
If Lina Khan only victory is that people are now aware that having a government this friendly with monopolies isn't normal, that's probably better than most politicians since Clinton.
miltonlost
Do you think it's fair to put the recent case on Lisa Khan when a) the Google antitrust lawsuit was started in Trump v1.0 and b) the trial remedy was during Trump 2.0? If anything, that Google was found to have antitrust behavior bolsters her success rate. She's not in charge there anymore, so blaming her is very very suspect.
octo888
They let them get away with tons for years/decades before doing anything serious
isoprophlex
US big tech has become so hostile to democracy and human values it's laughable.
udev4096
Keep crying
null
Going to pre-empt the comments that always pop up in these topics saying "Google/Meta/Apple will just leave the EU at this rate": Google still has around $20 billion yearly reasons to remain active in the EU. Talking Europe yearly net profit here, post-fine. No, they're not going to say "screw this fine, you can take your $20 billion per year, we're leaving!". The second that happens, shareholders will have Sundar's access revoked within the hour.
There is a number of countries where Google has to deal with large levels of protectionist barriers (not the EU, these fines aren't that) and they still operate there. Korea is just one example. Because there's still a lot of money to be made. China isn't a counterexample: Google stopped operating search in China because at that point there was not a lot of money to be made for them in search there.