The technology giant, owned by Alphabet, is already facing a growing number of legal claims from smaller rivals after losing a major case under the European Union’s new Digital Markets Act (DMA). Lawyers and litigation financiers say the ruling could encourage more companies to pursue compensation claims, with total damages potentially reaching as high as $10 billion.
The legal pressure follows a $1 billion penalty imposed on Google for allegedly favouring its own services and restricting app developers from directing users toward cheaper alternatives outside the Google Play ecosystem.
Legal experts believe the finding of continued wrongdoing could strengthen the position of companies seeking damages.
“I think this will trigger a new wave of litigation,” said Thomas Hoppner, a partner at Geradin Partners, which advised German price comparison platform Idealo in an earlier market abuse case.
The impact of the ruling was already visible after a Berlin court awarded Idealo €465 million ($528.9 million) in damages in November. The decision represented the largest antitrust damages award ever granted by a German court.
Hoppner said specialised search companies could seek compensation not only for violations linked to the DMA but also for earlier conduct under Article 102 of EU competition law, which prohibits companies with dominant market positions from abusing that power.
“Specialised search firms may seek damages, possibly not just for the period of the DMA but also for the years prior to the DMA breaches,” Hoppner said.
Google has rejected the claims, arguing that the lawsuits are financially motivated rather than based on genuine competition concerns.
“We strongly disagree with these lawsuits, which are brought by companies looking for a payout instead of investing in their own products,” a Google spokesperson said.
Growing Legal Pressure Across Europe
The latest claims add to more than €10.4 billion in fines imposed on Google by EU regulators over the past decade, as authorities continue to take a tougher approach toward major technology companies.
The private lawsuits are at different stages, with additional claims reportedly being prepared in several European countries.
The dispute over Google’s shopping practices dates back to 2008, when the company began placing its own comparison-shopping service more prominently in search results. Rival price comparison websites said the move reduced their visibility and caused significant traffic losses.
The European Commission eventually fined Google €2.42 billion in 2017 over the practice. Google challenged the decision but ultimately lost at Europe’s highest court last year.
Several companies have since launched compensation claims.
Britain’s Foundem was among the earliest companies to challenge Google’s practices. Sweden-based PriceRunner, supported by financial technology company Klarna, filed a multibillion-dollar claim in 2022 after Google’s appeal was rejected.
UK price comparison company Kelkoo is also seeking billions of pounds in damages and believes the latest DMA decision could strengthen its case.
“We expect these to be impacted somewhat by the DMA decision because it shows that Google is still self-referencing even to this day,” Kelkoo CEO Richard Stables said.
AI Spending Adds Financial Pressure
The lawsuits come at a challenging time for Alphabet as it continues to invest heavily in artificial intelligence infrastructure.
The company’s aggressive AI spending strategy has increased pressure on cash flows, while technology and semiconductor stocks have faced investor concerns over whether current AI valuations can be sustained.
Despite these challenges, Google remains one of the world’s most profitable technology companies, but analysts say the growing legal costs could become a significant financial burden if more claims succeed.
Litigation financing firm LitFin is backing two groups pursuing claims against Google in Amsterdam related to shopping auctions, with combined damages requests exceeding $1 billion.
“There are already a lot of these claims being filed, and probably more that are being prepared,” said Matej Pardo, LitFin’s chief operating officer.
Italy’s Moltiply Group, which operates the price comparison platform Trovaprezzi.it, is also seeking €2.97 billion in damages.
More Fines Could Mean More Lawsuits
Google’s recent penalties represent its fifth and sixth major EU findings related to anti-competitive behaviour. The company also recently lost a long-running legal battle over a record €4.1 billion EU fine linked to its Android mobile operating system, which regulators said was used to restrict competition.
Marco Pescarmona, chairman of Moltiply Group, said the latest DMA decision could strengthen private claims against Google, although he questioned whether European regulators would continue enforcing the law aggressively.
“The DMA is a very good piece of legislation. The defect maybe is that it’s so effective that they’re afraid to use it,” Pescarmona said.
However, Google may benefit from lengthy legal processes, as competition cases often take years to resolve. The company can still challenge the DMA-related penalty, and past cases show that appeals can significantly delay final payments.
In the shopping dispute, nearly two decades passed between the alleged violations and the conclusion of Google’s appeals.
“By that time, they've already monopolised many markets,” Pardo said, describing fines as “a cost of doing business” for large technology companies.
He added that legal battles could take up to eight years before reaching final conclusions.
In Sweden, a Stockholm court ordered Google in July to pay approximately $1.97 billion, including interest, in the PriceRunner case. While Klarna welcomed the ruling, the company does not expect an immediate payment.
“We can expect an appeal to take over a year, and likely years,” said Klarna’s counsel Pontus Scherp.
As Europe’s regulatory crackdown on Big Tech intensifies, Google’s next challenge may not only be defending itself against government penalties but also managing a growing wave of private lawsuits from competitors seeking compensation for years of alleged market dominance.