Technology & Science
Google Submits Non-Structural Adtech Remedy Plan After €2.95 B EU Fine
On 14 Nov 2025, one day before its 60-day deadline, Google formally offered Brussels a package of technical and interoperability tweaks—explicitly rejecting any asset sale—to satisfy the Commission’s €2.95 billion ad-tech antitrust ruling.
Focusing Facts
- The European Commission imposed a €2.95 billion fine on 5 Sept 2025 and required Google to present remedies within 60 days.
- Google’s proposal lets publishers set different floor prices for individual bidders inside Google Ad Manager, a feature unavailable before the filing.
- On 13 Nov 2025 the Commission opened a separate Digital Markets Act probe into Google for allegedly down-ranking news outlets in search results.
Context
Regulators have wrestled with integrated tech empires before—Standard Oil was broken up in 1911, while Microsoft escaped a split in 2001 after offering behavioural changes. Europe’s insistence that only divestiture can end Google’s ‘inherent conflict of interest’ echoes the structural-versus-behavioural debate that has cycled since the Sherman Act era. The episode also fits a broader 21st-century pattern: the EU uses competition law (GDPR 2018, Android ruling 2018, DMA 2024) to project regulatory power globally, while Washington oscillates between protectionism and prosecution, as shown by the U.S. DOJ’s parallel ad-tech verdict in April 2025 and President Trump’s tariff threats. Whether Brussels accepts Google’s soft remedy will signal if the world is entering a new phase of enforced data-infrastructure unbundling, or if dominant platforms can still deflect with incremental tweaks. On a century horizon, the decision matters because control of digital advertising underpins funding for media, politics, and information flows; rules set now could shape market structure—and thus public discourse—for decades, much as the 1934 Communications Act influenced broadcasting economics for half a century.
Perspectives
European outlets amplifying Brussels' stance
e.g., France 24, The Register, Cryptopolitan — Portray the EU fine as a warranted response to Google’s ‘self-preferencing’ monopoly and frame a forced divestiture as the credible, perhaps necessary, next step if behavioral tweaks fall short. Coverage tends to stress Europe’s regulatory leadership and downplay U.S. political pushback, reflecting an incentive to justify Brussels’ assertiveness and the revenue that massive tech fines bring into the bloc.
U.S. right-leaning media skeptical of Brussels
e.g., Washington Examiner — Cast Google as standing firm against what it calls heavy-handed EU regulators while highlighting Donald Trump’s threats of retaliatory tariffs and publishers’ doubts about the EU’s demands. Pieces foreground nationalist anger over European penalties on American companies and echo pro-business arguments, potentially minimizing antitrust harms to focus on perceived anti-U.S. bias in Europe.
Tech-centric trade press echoing Google’s narrative
e.g., Android Headlines, Android Central — Frame Google’s interoperability tweaks and pricing options as pragmatic fixes that should satisfy regulators without the ‘disruptive’ breakup Brussels has floated. Reliant on access to Google products and readers who are Google users, these outlets lean toward the company’s messaging, giving limited attention to critics who argue that structural remedies are required.