EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones
# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.
By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik
May 26, 2026 · 2 min read
The European Commission has officially warned Google about a possible multi-million euro fine for violating the Digital Markets Act (DMA) — a regulatory tool that the EU adopted specifically to break the "winner takes all" logic in big tech.
This is not the EU's first attempt to hold Google accountable. Over the past fifteen years, the corporation has paid European regulators more than 8 billion euros in fines — and continued to operate the same way. This is why the DMA was designed differently: not as punishment after the fact, but as a change of the rules of the game before damage is inflicted.
What the complaints are about
Regulators argue that Google prioritizes its own services in search results — essentially using the dominant position of its search engine to promote Google Shopping, Google Flights, Google Maps, and other company products. Competitors appear lower in results not because they are worse, but because Google is a judge in its own case.
The DMA requires so-called "gatekeepers" — platforms with a market capitalization exceeding 75 billion euros or an audience of over 45 million active users in the EU — to ensure equal access for all market participants. Google officially received "gatekeeper" status in 2023.
How this case differs from previous ones
The key difference lies in the instrument. Previous antitrust cases against Google were conducted under old legislation, which required proving market harm in each specific case. The DMA establishes pre-defined obligations: violate — and you get a fine up to 10% of annual global revenue. In Google's case, this could be up to 30 billion euros for a single violation.
Additionally, the DMA provides for the possibility of obligating a company to change its business model — even up to structural separation of the business if violations are systematic.
What Google says in response
The corporation traditionally denies the allegations, insisting that its services offer users the best experience and do not artificially restrict competition. Company representatives stated that they are cooperating with regulators and believe their practices comply with DMA requirements.
However, this very argument — "we are simply better" — is the subject of dispute. Regulators question not the quality of Google's products, but the very fact that the company controls both the platform and the players on it.
Scale beyond Google
The case against Google is the first serious test of the DMA in action. Its outcome will determine whether the new law becomes a real constraint on technology monopolies or turns into another expense line that large corporations budget for.
In parallel, Apple, Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft are also subject to the DMA. They are all watching how the European Commission handles Google — and drawing conclusions about their own strategies.
For Ukrainian technology companies oriented toward the European market, this is also not abstract news: the rules that the EU establishes for "gatekeepers" determine the conditions of entry for everyone else.
The European Commission's final decision is expected within several months. If a fine is imposed and Google appeals it, the case could last for years. The real question is: is the European Commission ready to apply structural measures if financial penalties again prove insufficient to change the behavior of a company with annual revenue of 300 billion dollars?
