On 23 July 2026, the European Commission adopted two decisions imposing a combined fine of €890 million on Google for non-compliance with the Digital Markets Act. The first fine, amounting to €460 million, concerns the preferential treatment of Google’s own services in Google Search. The second, amounting to €430 million, concerns restrictions preventing app developers from directing users towards alternative purchasing channels outside Google Play. It is the first major action against the big tech company under the DMA which reflects the European Union’s ambition to create fairer and more contestable digital markets, strengthen its regulatory influence, and reinforce its digital sovereignty.
The first decision addresses Google’s presentation of services such as shopping, hotels, transport, and sports results. Under the DMA, designated gatekeepers must apply transparent, fair, and non-discriminatory conditions when ranking their own services alongside those offered by third parties. The Commission concluded that Google displayed its own services more prominently, including through higher placement, enhanced visual formats and additional filters that were not equally available to competing services. The change in these practices would put vertical search competitors, travel platforms, and hotel aggregators in a better position and give them greater visibility in search results.
The second decision concerns Google’s steering policy, that prevents third party app developers from freely communicating and promoting offers as well as concluding contracts with their consumers. Under the Digital Markets Act, all developers without preference and free of charge, should be able to display alternative, cheaper offers and direct them to purchases via Google Play. Greater autonomy to direct users to external payment channels would lower transaction costs for developers. It would additionally reduce reliance on Google’s commission structure and encourage the wider use of alternative payment systems. And finally, it could give consumers more flexibility in choosing between diverse digital payment methods. In the long term, this could increase efficiency in competition between Big Techs Giants such as Google and its smaller competitors such as entrepreneurs and third-party app developers.
As a result, the commission has ordered an end to both infringements. Additionally, Google should comply with the Commission’s decisions within 60 days, otherwise it will face additional periodic penalty payments of up to 5% of its total worldwide turnover.
Previous Enforcement Against Google
It is worth noting that the €890 million penalty is not the first instance of EU action against Google. The Commission has already held several major investigations involving Google’s search, mobile operating systems, and advertising activities. Previous fines include a €2.42 billion fine in the Google Shopping case in 2017, a €4.34 billion fine concerning Android practices in 2018, and a €2.95 billion fine relating to advertising technology in 2025.
However, the latest case differs from several earlier proceedings because it was brought under the Digital Markets Act rather than solely through the EU antitrust legislation. Namely, the DMA establishes ex ante obligations for digital gatekeepers, which allows the Commission to intervene without first having to demonstrate the existence of an abuse of dominance through case-to-case assessment lasting several years. For Gatekeepers with a dominant market share, this means that regulatory compliance becomes an ongoing operational requirement rather than a legal issue addressed only after an investigation.
In practice, this creates two viable scenarios. First, global companies comply with DMA standards, which once again reinforces the so-called Brussels Effect. Although the rules formally apply only within the European Economic Area, maintaining separate business models for Europe and other markets may be complex. Alternatively, Companies will adjust different types of product features for the EU and for other countries. While ex ante obligations and proceedings are intended to address potentially anti-competitive conduct before it distorts the market, they could also raise questions about procedural fairness, proportionality, and the application of the rules.
The US Response on the Big Tech Fines
These concerns have also been raised by the US authorities. Washington claims that EU regulation disproportionately affects Silicon Valley, as many of the EU’s largest competition investigations have involved American Big Tech, while leaving European companies relatively untouched. Following the announcement of the fine, President Donald Trump condemned the Commission’s actions and argued that the EU has once again unfairly targeted American technology companies. He announced the initiation of a Section 301 investigation into EU practices affecting US companies. An investigation under a Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 would allow the US administration to examine whether a foreign government measure is discriminatory or burdens US commerce. Trump has nevertheless indicated that if discriminatory treatment is proved, the Google fine could result in significant consequences for the European Union, such as trade retaliation. Given that the current EU-US framework already foresees tariffs of up to 10%, any further increase could bring the overall tariff level to 15%, as suggested by the current administration.
Another relevant consideration is the duration of the investigation. Section 301 proceedings typically take several months before any measures can be adopted. Consequently, any potential retaliation would be unlikely to have an immediate impact. While it is quite compelling how far the Trump administration is willing to go with tariffs, there is still room for negotiations between Washington and Brussels before concrete trade measures are introduced.
It is noteworthy that the European Commission rejects this characterisation, upholding that enforcement is based exclusively on objective legal criteria and the market position of designated gatekeepers, rather than their nationality. However, if Washington decides to impose retaliatory tariffs, the consequences would extend beyond the technology sector. Potential measures could affect major European export industries, including German automotive manufacturing, machinery, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and luxury goods, sectors that account for a significant share of EU exports to the United States. Such retaliation would therefore affect European businesses much more than those directly involved in the digital dispute as well as other major US companies.
Possible Implication for the Turnberry Agreement
The dispute comes shortly after the EU-US trade deal entered into force on 1 July 2026. The well-known Turnberry Agreement aims to strengthen transatlantic trade and provide greater predictability for businesses on both sides of the Atlantic. The trade deal includes a 15% ceiling on most US tariffs applied to EU exports. Additionally, it allows cooperation in key sectors such as supply-chain resilience, critical raw materials, digital dialogue, economic and energy security.
While additional US tariffs would weaken the commitment to established tariff conditions by the parties, the EU-US trade deal also leaves a space for “alternative dispute settlement”. Namely, the agreement sets up a digital dialogue that could be used to discuss DMA enforcement, compliance expectations, and the US concerns about discriminatory treatment. A structured dialogue would not require the Commission to weaken enforcement, but it could improve transparency and reduce the risk of regulatory measures being interpreted primarily as trade actions.
Its effectiveness however, remains uncertain. As the agreement is a political memorandum of understanding rather than a traditional free trade agreement, the digital dialogue relies primarily on political willingness from both sides of the Atlantic. In case of the absence of a genuine willingness to compromise, the mechanism risks becoming a “toothless tiger”. This institutional uncertainty would also directly affect businesses. The lack of predictability regarding the dispute could influence diversification of supply chains and delay investment decisions. Such ambiguity risks weakening one of the principal objectives of the Turnberry agreement, namely to provide greater predictability for transatlantic trade and investment.
Future Outlook
In the short term, few aspects should be observed. First, whether Google complies with the Commissions’ decision, or pursues any additional legal action. And second, how broad would be the scope of the announced U.S. Section 301 investigation. The investigation will be particularly essential to determine whether the administration’s response remains political or develops into concrete trade measures.
Over the coming months, several scenarios are possible. In the most constructive scenario, the Section 301 investigation does not result in retaliatory tariffs, or proceedings might not start at all. In the second scenario, the investigation could lead to additional US tariffs, which would allow the EU to use countermeasures. In the long term, continued pressure from the EU on digital compliance and additional fines can weaken the relationship between the US and the EU.
The Google fine by the EU Commission proves that decisions affecting major technology companies can rapidly influence trade negotiations and create diplomatic concerns. However, as technology continues to shape competitiveness, security, and global markets, both the EU and the US have a shared interest in promoting innovation, ensuring fair competition, and maintaining open and stable digital markets.
Moving forward, the case highlights the importance of continued transatlantic dialogue on digital governance. Therefore, Brussels and Washington should manage digital dispute without allowing it to weaken a partnership that remains central to the Transatlantic Alliance, global trade, innovation and economic security.
