Why Google may be forced to sell parts of its ad business after EU’s €2.95bn fine

The European Commission has imposed a massive €2.95 billion antitrust fine on Google, accusing the tech giant of systematically abusing its dominant position in the online advertising technology (adtech) ecosystem. The decision, announced on September 5, 2025, marks the third major EU penalty against Google and represents one of the most consequential rulings in digital market regulation to date.

The Commission found that Google violated Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) by favoring its proprietary advertising exchange AdX across two key layers of the adtech supply chain: publisher ad servers and programmatic buying tools. The case has implications not only for European advertisers and publishers but also for ongoing legal proceedings in the United States.

What specific adtech practices by Google were deemed illegal by the European Commission?

The Commission’s findings center on the interaction between Google’s ad server (DoubleClick for Publishers, or DFP), its ad exchange (AdX), and its ad buying tools (Google Ads and DV360). Between at least 2014 and 2025, Google used DFP to provide AdX with advance information about rival bids during auctions. This insider knowledge enabled AdX to systematically outbid competitors.

Simultaneously, Google’s buying tools—particularly Google Ads—routed most demand exclusively to AdX, limiting rival exchanges’ ability to compete on equal footing. According to the Commission, this self-preferencing substantially reinforced AdX’s role in the adtech stack while allowing Google to charge premium service fees.

These practices reduced transparency, hurt competition, and distorted pricing mechanisms across the open web, especially for non-search-based display advertising. The Commission concluded that these actions entrenched Google’s market power and directly harmed advertisers, publishers, and ultimately, end consumers.

How did Google’s actions in adtech impact advertisers, publishers, and consumers in the EU?

Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera stated that Google’s abusive behavior raised marketing costs for advertisers, suppressed revenues for publishers, and indirectly affected consumers through higher product prices and lower-quality online content.

The decision noted that digital advertising—particularly display advertising—is a core enabler of free online services. Google’s vertical integration and control over critical adtech tools gave it the ability to manipulate this value chain. By locking demand into AdX and obstructing competing ad exchanges, Google allegedly stifled innovation and reduced the efficiency of the entire advertising market.

The Commission observed that fewer competitive options for publishers may have led to higher paywalls or degraded service experiences, eroding the quality of free internet content available to European users.

What is the scope and legal foundation of the EU’s €2.95 billion antitrust fine against Google?

The fine was determined under the Commission’s 2006 guidelines on antitrust penalties. In setting the amount, the Commission considered the gravity and duration of the infringement, which spanned more than a decade. It also factored in Google’s prior competition law violations within the EU.

Specifically, the Commission found Google to be dominant in both (i) the publisher ad server market—via DFP—and (ii) programmatic ad buying for the open web—via Google Ads and DV360. Market dominance itself is not illegal under EU law, but abuse of that position to the detriment of rivals and consumers violates Article 102 of the TFEU.

This decision builds upon prior enforcement actions against Google in areas such as comparison shopping and Android mobile services. With this latest decision, the Commission reinforced its stance that digital markets require proactive oversight to remain competitive.

What remedies has the European Commission proposed—and could Google be forced to break up its adtech business?

In addition to the financial penalty, the European Commission has ordered Google to end its self-preferencing behavior and address structural conflicts of interest within its adtech business model. Google has 60 days to submit a remediation plan.

Should Google fail to propose an adequate remedy, the Commission may impose a structural solution. It has already signaled that divestiture—meaning the sale of part of Google’s adtech assets—may be the only viable way to restore competitive balance.

Executive Vice-President Ribera emphasized that a fine alone will not create “real and tangible solutions” for the digital ad market. Structural separation, she noted, appears both necessary and proportionate given the decade-long abuse and the global scale of its impact.

How does this ruling connect to the U.S. Department of Justice case against Google’s adtech business?

The timing of the EU decision is significant, as it comes just weeks ahead of a key trial in the United States. A U.S. Federal Court has already upheld many of the Department of Justice’s claims, which mirror the EU’s findings. The trial on remedies in the U.S. is set to begin on September 22, 2025.

The Commission has hinted at the potential for coordinated transatlantic enforcement. With both jurisdictions examining the same core allegations, regulators may jointly press for a unified solution—potentially leading to a global restructuring of Google’s adtech operations.

Such a move would be unprecedented in scope and could redefine how digital advertising platforms operate in both the U.S. and the European Economic Area.

What do institutional investors and market watchers expect from Google in light of the ruling?

Investors are now closely watching how Google responds, especially given rising global scrutiny of its adtech dominance. Some institutional voices expect that divestiture—possibly of AdX or DV360—may prove inevitable if regulators in both the U.S. and EU push for structural separation.

While Google’s parent Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOGL) did not immediately respond with market-moving statements, analysts believe the risk of forced breakup could weigh on the stock in the near term, particularly as global regulators appear more aligned than ever in challenging tech monopolies.

That said, any selloff may be tempered by Alphabet’s strong balance sheet and diversified revenue streams, including YouTube, cloud, and hardware. The sentiment across institutional investors appears cautious but not panicked.

What happens next—and how will this reshape the digital advertising landscape in Europe?

With 60 days on the clock, the next move belongs to Google. It must either offer an acceptable plan to eliminate conflicts of interest or risk a more forceful intervention by Brussels. Observers say that whatever remedy emerges could set a global precedent for regulating vertically integrated digital platforms.

The Commission’s decision also opens the door for civil lawsuits. Under the EU’s Antitrust Damages Directive, any publisher or advertiser harmed by Google’s conduct may seek compensation in national courts. The Commission’s ruling serves as binding proof in such cases.

This ruling is not just about punishing past behavior—it’s about rewriting the rules of engagement in the digital advertising world. Whether through fines, breakups, or lawsuits, Google now faces intense pressure to structurally change how it does business in Europe and beyond.