Google and Alphabet ask the General Court of the European Union to annul a €2.95B European Commission fine for favoring Google’s own ad exchange, AdX. The action is pending while the Commission market-tests Google’s behavioral remedies and keeps a divestiture option open. In follow-on litigation, on October 14, 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal accepted jurisdiction over a €705M damages claim by Adevinta-Leboncoin group companies.
Latest development Oct 14, 2026
On October 14, 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal reversed a first-instance ruling and accepted jurisdiction over a €705M follow-on damages claim by Adevinta-Leboncoin group companies. The Italian, German, Dutch, and Spanish claimants sued Google France, Google Ireland, Google LLC, and Alphabet, using Google France as anchor defendant.
Why it matters
The General Court will decide whether the Commission’s self-preferencing finding and €2.95B fine stand, while the Commission weighs a divestiture that a U.S. court declined to order. The outcome affects Google, advertisers, and publishers seeking follow-on damages in Europe and the United States.
Background
On June 22, 2021, the European Commission opened a formal investigation into Google’s ad-tech practices. On June 14, 2023, it issued a Statement of Objections, taking the preliminary view that only divesting part of Google’s ad-tech business would remedy its conflicts of interest. In April 2025, in parallel U.S. litigation, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Google illegally monopolized the same markets. On September 5, 2025, the Commission fined Google €2.95B under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in Case AT.40670. It found that since 2014 Google had abused dominant positions in publisher ad servers and programmatic ad-buying tools.
According to the decision, Google’s ad server, DFP, gave its own exchange, AdX, advance information on rivals’ best bids. Its buying tools, Google Ads and DV360, steered demand to AdX. The decision ordered Google to end the self-preferencing and to propose remedies within 60 days. The Commission stated its preliminary view that only a structural remedy, divesting part of the ad-tech stack, would resolve Google’s inherent conflicts of interest. On November 14, 2025, Google proposed behavioral remedies, including publisher-set differential price floors and greater interoperability of its tools.
In Case T-794/25, Google and Alphabet ask the General Court of the European Union to annul the decision and to eliminate or reduce the fine. The Official Journal published the action on January 12, 2026, two days before the Commission released a provisional non-confidential version of the decision. Paris courts then awarded follow-on damages against Google to broadcaster M6 (€22.69M) on March 10, 2026, and to sports publisher L’Équipe (€16.19M) on March 26, 2026. In June 2026, more than 20 news publishers from eight EU countries, funded by Prague-based LitFin, filed a €640M follow-on damages claim against Google in Amsterdam. On June 29, 2026, the Paris Tribunal des Activités Économiques ordered Google to pay about €126M to Le Figaro, Les Echos-Le Parisien, Prisma Media, and Dailymotion.
On August 3, 2026, Teads Holding Co. sued Google and Alphabet in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking treble damages. On September 2, 2026, the Virginia court rejected the U.S. government’s bid to force divestiture of AdX and ordered behavioral remedies instead. On September 30, 2026, the New York court let Gannett, Daily Mail, and a class of about 5,000 publishers pursue more than $3.2B in related ad-tech damages claims. On October 14, 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal reversed a first-instance ruling and accepted jurisdiction over a €705M follow-on claim by Adevinta-Leboncoin group companies. The annulment action remains pending, and the Commission is market-testing Google’s proposals with hundreds of stakeholders while keeping the divestiture option open.
Timeline 15 events
-
OrderGoogle seeks stay of New York ad-tech damages case
Google asked the Southern District of New York court to pause the consolidated private ad-tech antitrust litigation, including the $3.2B publisher damages claims. It seeks the pause while it appeals its loss to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Virginia.
Google to seek stay of US adtech antitrust cases pending appeal of DOJ lossGoogle Will Seek To Pause Ad Tech Case For DOJ Appeal
-
JudgmentParis Court of Appeal accepts jurisdiction over Adevinta claim
The court reversed a first-instance ruling. Italian, German, Dutch, and Spanish Adevinta-Leboncoin group companies seek €705M from Google France, Google Ireland, Google LLC, and Alphabet, using Google France as anchor defendant.
The Paris Court of Appeal accepts jurisdiction over foreign publishers' ad tech damages claims using a Big Tech company's French subsidiary as anchor defendant (Adevinta / Google)The Paris Court of Appeal allows EEA-wide ad tech damages claims to be consolidated in France through a Big Tech company's local subsidiary (Adevinta / Google)
-
JudgmentSDNY judge lets $3.2B publisher ad-tech claims proceed
U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel denied most of Google’s summary judgment motion. The ruling let Gannett (USA Today), Daily Mail, and a class of about 5,000 publishers pursue more than $3.2B in damages over AdX and publisher ad server practices.
Google Faces $3.2 Billion Damage Claims on Ad-Tech MonopolyCourt Denies Google's Summary Judgment Bid Against Publisher Class, Refuses to Exclude Opinions by Publishers' Experts in Ad Tech Antitrust CaseGoogle Faces $3.2 Billion Damage Claims on Ad-Tech Monopoly - Bloomberg
-
FilingTeads sues Google in New York over lost ad impressions
Teads Holding Co. sued Google and Alphabet in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It alleged rival exchanges lost about 6.88 trillion impressions in 2017–2023 because Google tied Google Ads demand to AdX, and sought treble damages.
Teads sues Google, citing 6.88 trillion impressions lost to rival exchanges
-
OtherGlobal Competition Review reports more French ad-tech claims against Google
It reported an uptick in French damages claims over Google’s ad-tech conduct, with further filings being prepared beyond the M6 and L’Équipe judgments.
-
JudgmentParis court awards four French media companies about €126M
The Paris Tribunal des Activités Économiques ordered Google to pay follow-on damages to Le Figaro, Les Echos-Le Parisien, Prisma Media, and Dailymotion. The claims built on the French competition authority’s earlier decision and the Commission’s €2.95B fine.
Google ordered to pay €126m in damages to Dailymotion, French press publishersGoogle to pay €126 million to French media groups over ad tech violationsThree French Publishers Secure Damages from Google in Anticompetitive Adtech Case
-
FilingPublishers file €640M follow-on claim in Amsterdam
More than 20 publishers from eight EU countries, funded by LitFin, sued Google for damages building directly on the Commission’s infringement finding.
-
JudgmentParis court orders Google to pay €16.19M to L’Équipe
A second Paris civil tribunal awarded the sports publisher follow-on damages for ad-tech self-preferencing. It was the second such French judgment after the Commission’s decision.
-
JudgmentParis court orders Google to pay €22.69M to M6
A Paris civil tribunal awarded broadcaster M6 follow-on damages against Google for exclusionary self-preferencing in the online advertising technology market, building on the Commission’s AT.40670 findings.
-
OrderCommission publishes redacted version of ad-tech decision
The European Commission released the public, redacted version of its September 2025 decision fining Google €2.95B for ad-tech self-preferencing, as structural remedies continued to be considered.
European Commission releases public Google AdTech decision as structural remedies loom
-
AppealOfficial Journal publishes Google’s annulment action, Case T-794/25
The action by Google and Alphabet before the EU General Court sought annulment of the decision and elimination or reduction of the €2.95B fine.
-
OtherGoogle proposes behavioral remedies to avoid a breakup
Google offered publisher-set price floors and interoperability changes. The Commission began market-testing the proposals with market participants.
-
JudgmentCommission fines Google €2.95B for ad-tech self-preferencing
The decision found Google favored AdX through DFP and its buying tools since 2014, ordered the conduct to end and gave Google 60 days to propose remedies.
EC press release IP/25/1992Loyens & Loeff briefing on the decision
-
OrderCommission issues Statement of Objections signaling divestiture
The Commission took the preliminary view that only mandatory divestment of part of Google’s ad-tech business would remedy its conflicts of interest.
-
FilingCommission opens formal investigation into Google’s ad-tech practices
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeBy March 31, 2028, will the European Commission formally settle the remedy for Google’s ad-tech abuse in Case AT.40670 by accepting behavioral measures or by ordering a divestiture?
- Commission accepts behavioral remedies47%
- Still pending on March 31, 202838%
- Commission orders ad-tech divestiture15%
- Resolves by
- Mar 31, 2028in 17 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The Commission is most likely to settle on Google’s behavioral remedies by March 31, 2028 (47%). It has never ordered a contested Article 102 divestiture, and the U.S. court’s September 2, 2026, refusal to order an AdX sale weakens the case for going alone. A long, open-ended compliance review (38%) remains the main alternative.
How it resolves. Resolves to behavioral remedies if, by March 31, 2028, the Commission publicly states or decides that Google’s behavioral measures bring it into compliance with the AT.40670 decision, or closes the remedy phase without a structural order. Resolves to divestiture if the Commission adopts a decision requiring Google to divest any part of its ad-tech business, such as AdX or DFP. Resolves to still pending if neither has occurred, including where monitoring or market testing continues without a formal position.
Reasoning
Starting point. European Commission remedy and compliance phases after contested Article 102 infringement decisions: The Commission has never imposed a contested structural remedy under Article 102. Compliance reviews, such as Google Shopping, often run for years without a formal closing decision.
The base rate favors behavioral outcomes. The Commission has never imposed a contested structural remedy under Article 102, and Regulation 1/2003 allows divestiture only where behavioral remedies would be ineffective. Against that, the Commission has said since 2023 that only divestiture would resolve Google’s conflicts of interest, and it kept that option open after Google’s November 14, 2025, proposals. The Virginia court’s September 2, 2026, rejection of an AdX divestiture lowers the odds that Brussels orders a breakup alone, given the transatlantic coordination and litigation risk. A divestiture order would also face immediate challenge alongside the pending annulment action in T-794/25. The large unresolved share reflects Commission practice. In Google Shopping, compliance monitoring continued for years without a formal acceptance decision. The follow-on damages rulings in Paris and the U.S. publisher rulings since the last forecast add pressure on Google but do not change the Commission’s remedy calculus. No development in the record moved any outcome by five points or more since the September 24, 2026, forecast, so the numbers are unchanged. The General Court judgment itself is unlikely before 2028, given typical competition-case durations of three to four years.
Commission has never imposed contested Article 102 divestiture · U.S. court declined AdX divestiture on September 2, 2026 · Commission’s stated preference for structural remedy since 2023 · Commission compliance reviews often lack formal closing decisions · Pending annulment action and follow-on damages pressure
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Oct 20, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made
Disclosure: Anthropic, which makes the model that wrote this forecast, competes with or has commercial ties to a party to this case.