EU Readies Record Google Fine Under the Digital Markets Act

EU Moves Toward a Historic Digital Markets Act Penalty

The European Union is preparing to impose a record fine on Alphabet’s Google under the Digital Markets Act, in what would become the largest penalty issued under the law since enforcement began in March 2024.

The expected penalty is tied to allegations that Google unfairly favors its own services in search results. This practice, often described as self-preferencing, has been a long-running focus for European regulators as they examine how major technology platforms use their market position.

The case is reportedly close to completion, with an official announcement expected before the summer recess. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is expected to have the final say on the penalty.

High Triple-Digit Million Euro Fine Expected

The fine is expected to reach the high triple-digit million euro range. If imposed at that level, it would set a new benchmark for enforcement under the Digital Markets Act.

The size of the expected penalty matters because the DMA is still a relatively new regulatory framework. Since enforcement began in March 2024, the law has been viewed as one of the EU’s central tools for controlling the conduct of large digital platforms designated as gatekeepers.

A fine in the high hundreds of millions would show that the Commission is prepared to use the DMA not only as a compliance framework, but also as a major enforcement instrument against large technology companies.

Why the Google Case Centers on Self-Preferencing

The case focuses on whether Google gives unfair advantage to its own services in search results.

For European regulators, self-preferencing has long been a major concern. The issue is not simply that Google operates services within search, but that its position in search may allow it to prioritize those services over competing offerings.

Under the Digital Markets Act, large platforms designated as gatekeepers must follow specific behavioral obligations. The Google case is being watched closely because it could become one of the clearest tests yet of how aggressively the Commission is willing to enforce those obligations.

Google’s Compliance Proposals Have Not Resolved the Case

The planned fine comes despite Google’s attempts to settle the matter.

In early May, Google proposed changes to its spam policy in an effort to address Commission concerns. The proposal also gave stakeholders an opportunity to comment. Earlier in May, the Commission granted Google additional time to respond after determining that its initial compliance proposal was not sufficient.

Those efforts have not prevented the case from moving toward a major penalty. The Commission’s decision is now reportedly nearing completion, suggesting that Google’s compliance steps have not fully answered the regulatory concerns.

Stakeholders Have Pressed the EU to Act Faster

European publishers and technology firms have grown frustrated with the pace of enforcement.

In March, a coalition that included the European Publishers Council urged EU leaders to conclude the investigation and impose a penalty. Members of that council include Axel Springer and News Corp.

Their pressure reflects broader industry impatience around Google’s search practices and the speed at which regulators are applying the DMA to major gatekeepers.

The Digital Markets Act Raises the Stakes for Big Tech

The Digital Markets Act designates large online platforms as gatekeepers and subjects them to specific behavioral obligations. The Google case is significant because the expected fine would be far larger than any DMA penalty issued so far.

A high triple-digit million euro fine would mark a sharp escalation in the Commission’s use of newer regulatory tools. It would also reinforce Brussels’ broader push to hold major technology companies accountable under rules designed specifically for digital markets.

How the DMA Fine Differs From Earlier Google Penalties

The expected DMA penalty is separate from earlier EU action against Google under traditional antitrust rules.

In September 2025, the Commission fined Google €2.95 billion for abusing its dominance in advertising technology. That case was handled under EU antitrust rules, specifically Article 102, rather than the Digital Markets Act.

The distinction is important. Article 102 cases focus on abuse of dominant market positions under established antitrust law. The DMA, by contrast, imposes defined obligations on gatekeeper platforms before conduct develops into a traditional antitrust case.

Brussels Intensifies Its Regulatory Pressure on Major Platforms

The planned Google penalty fits into a wider pattern of EU enforcement against major technology companies.

The DMA has not yet produced a fine of this size. A high hundreds of millions penalty would therefore represent a turning point for the law. It would show that the Commission is ready to move beyond warnings, compliance talks, and procedural steps when it believes a gatekeeper has not met its obligations.

The comparison with other EU digital enforcement is also notable. The largest Digital Services Act penalty to date was the €120 million fine imposed on X in December 2025. A DMA fine against Google in the high triple-digit million euro range would be far larger and would signal a stronger enforcement posture under the EU’s newer digital rulebook.

Why This Fine Could Set a DMA Enforcement Precedent

Because the Digital Markets Act is still new, each major enforcement decision helps define how the law will operate in practice.

A record penalty against Google would send a clear message to other gatekeepers: compliance proposals must satisfy the Commission’s concerns, and delays or partial remedies may not be enough to avoid fines.

It would also strengthen the role of the DMA as a central pillar of EU technology regulation, especially in cases involving search visibility, platform power, and preferential treatment of a company’s own services.

It would also strengthen the role of the DMA as a central pillar of EU technology regulation, especially in cases involving search visibility, platform power, and preferential treatment of a company’s own services.