Preiskel & CoPreiskel & Co
Preiskel & Co
A boutique law firm in London
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Diversity, Social Responsibility, and Pro Bono
  • Services
    • Corporate
    • Commercial
    • Regulatory
    • Competition & Antitrust
    • Data Protection, Privacy, and Retention
    • Intellectual Property
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Employment
  • Sectors
    • Telecommunications
    • IT, Technology, & Internet
    • Media and Broadcasting
    • Websites, Blogging, & Social Media
    • Film & Television
    • Gambling & Online Gaming
    • Leisure & Retail
    • Energy & Minerals
    • Cryptocurrency & Blockchain
    • Creative Industries
  • People
    • Daniel Preiskel
    • Ronnie Preiskel
    • Tim Cowen
    • Jose Saras
    • Robert Dougans
    • Karthyaeni Vittala
    • Tina Cowen
    • Xavier Prida
    • Martina Raciti
    • Ewelina James
    • Rachael Machado
    • Maria Constantin
    • Peter Dally
    • Richard Stewart
    • Joanna Coombs-Huang
    • Paul Stelges
    • Hannah Leader
    • Alison MacFarlane
    • Ilanit Appelfeld
    • Daniel Oakland
    • Sophia Yakhno
    • Sue Warwick
    • D A T Green
    • Antony Corel
    • Stewart White
    • Mor Swiel
    • Stephen Hornsby
    • Tony Curzon-Price
    • Robert Harvey
    • Shardi Shameli
  • International
  • Blog
  • News
    • Publications
  • Contact
Menu back  

EU General Court Google Shopping Decision may boost prospects for future damages claims

November 11, 2021By Preiskel & Co

Google appealed against the European Commission’s findings in its 2017 Google Search (Shopping) Decision in the General Court (GC); however, the GC has dismissed Google’s action and upheld the €2.42bn fine imposed by the Commission in a judgment published on 10 November 2021. The GC found that Google had engaged in anti-competitive activity, having favoured its own comparison-shopping service on its general search results by means of preferential display and positioning of its product through ranking algorithms.

The GC also noted that Google’s general results page can be likened to an essential facility, as there is no actual or potential substitute available. However, it also affirmed that it was not necessary to apply the law on refusal to supply to the case at hand using the Bronner judgment. Even so, the harmful effects of Google’s self-preferential treatment on competition were highlighted by the GC, affirming that this behaviour could have resulted in the disappearance of competing comparison-shopping services, lessened innovation in the market and created less choice for consumers.

However, the GC annulled the Commission’s finding that there had been an infringement in the market for general search services, stating that the Commission did not establish that Google’s conduct had had actual or potential anti-competitive effects thereon.

Regardless, the judgment may be encouraging as to the possible success of future claims for damages where claimants can prove that they suffered a loss, financial or otherwise, or distress from Google’s ability to give preference to its own products in its search results. In particular, this will be relevant for suppliers who can prove that their loss arose from this self-preferential conduct, and that such consequences would not have arisen if Google had prioritised the best or most relevant search results.

You can read the full judgment here. Please contact Tim Cowen with any questions.

Latest Preiskel & Co blog posts
  • CMA AI Report: The Foundation of the UK’s AI Response
    September 21, 2023
  • Navigating Health Data Compliance: A Roadmap for Employers
    September 21, 2023
  • Transatlantic convergence? Recent cases on advertising and privacy from the USA and UK
    September 15, 2023
  • Practical Guide – Net Neutrality in the UK
    September 14, 2023
  • Virgin succeeded in defending a claim by EE for loss of EE’s profits caused by Virgin’s breach of the MVNO Exclusivity Clause
    September 12, 2023
  • Getting out of a (data) scrape: global statement published for the protection of publicly accessible personal data online
    September 8, 2023
  • The dark side of design: the ICO and CMA call for businesses to rethink their website layouts
    August 18, 2023
  • Could the Supreme Court’s ruling on litigation funding agreements cause havoc for litigation funders?
    August 17, 2023
  • US Threats of a ‘Te(ch)xodus’ from the UK?
    August 17, 2023
  • Smoother Sailing for EU-US Data Transfers after GDPR Adequacy Decision
    August 4, 2023
  • Unlocking Data Flows: EU-US Data Privacy Framework Receives Adequacy Decision
    July 13, 2023
  • UK’s World Leading Approach on Artificial Intelligence – White Paper outlines 5 guideline principles for responsible use of AI
    July 5, 2023

The Preiskel Blog

  • CMA AI Report: The Foundation of the UK’s AI Response 21 Sep 2023
  • Navigating Health Data Compliance: A Roadmap for Employers 21 Sep 2023
  • Transatlantic convergence? Recent cases on advertising and privacy from the USA and UK 15 Sep 2023
  • Practical Guide – Net Neutrality in the UK 14 Sep 2023

Preiskel news

  • Tim Cowen, Chair of Antitrust Practice, Preiskel & Co, quoted in The Times
  • Practical Guide – Net Neutrality in the UK
  • Danny Preiskel featured in GCCM Magazine (June/July 2023 issue 55)  
  • Danny Preiskel moderating a panel at the MEF Connects – The Future of Fraud Prevention event (5th September 2023, hybrid)
Preiskel & Co LLP
4 King's Bench Walk,
Temple,
London
EC4Y 7DL
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7332 5640
Email: info@preiskel.com

Find us on:

TwitterLinkedinMail
© Preiskel & Co LLP 2023 | Site map | Legal notices | Cookie Policy | Privacy