The €890 million fine levied by the European Union against Google isn’t just a slap on the wrist. It is ammunition.
Specifically, it’s fuel for a growing line of private damages claims across Europe.
This penalty is the first issued under the Digital Markets Act. It targets two distinct behaviors: favoring Google’s own services in search results and restricting app developers from steering users to cheaper payment options.
Why does this matter now?
Because nearly every major lawsuit already pending was built on an older 2017 ruling. The new fine proves the behavior didn’t stop. It just changed shape. And that makes Google’s defense significantly harder to sell in court.
How the New DMA Fine Changes the Damage Calculation
To understand the shift, you need to look at the timeline.
The current wave of litigation relies on the European Commission’s 2017 Google Shopping verdict. That ruling found Google guilty of self-preferencing. It forced them to change how they displayed search results.
Claimants used that 2017 finding to quantify their losses. They didn’t have to prove Google was unfair again. They just had to prove how much it cost them in the years that followed.
The new penalty covers different ground.
It addresses continued self-preferencing after the 2017 rules. It also tackles anti-steering practices in the Google Play store.
Brussels found that Google restricted app developers from telling users about cheaper payment options outside the Play ecosystem.
This distinction is critical.
It undermines a key defense Google has used in these national courts: that the 2017 fixes solved the problem and any harm was short-lived.
If the conduct continued years later, the “problem is fixed” argument falls apart.
Where Rivals Are Claiming Their Cut
The scale of the damages being sought is staggering.
In Germany, a Berlin court has already begun handing out verdicts. In November 2025, price-comparison site Idealo was awarded €465 million. That is a far cry from the €3.3 billion they initially sought.
Co-founder Albrecht von Sonntag didn’t mince words. He stated that market abuse must have consequences and shouldn’t become a lucrative business model.
In the same case, Producto GmbH, which operates Testberichte.de, won roughly €107 million. They had asked for €290 million.
Italy is moving in aggressively.
The Moltiply Group’s subsidiary, 7Pixel, filed a €2.97 billion claim in May 2025. This targets harm to its Trovaprezzi.it service. Moltiply disclosed this in a regulated filing, noting the figure includes structural effects of the abuse and calculated interest.
Sweden’s Klarna-owned PriceRunner secured roughly €1.7 billion in a Stockholm court verdict in July 2026.
Why This Changes the Legal Battlefield
Most of these cases predate the new DMA fine. They are “follow-on” claims.
But the new fine does more than just add insult to injury. It potentially widens the scope of recoverable damages.
Because the DMA penalty documents misconduct from more recent years, companies may now seek compensation for that later period too.
Previously, they could only look back at the pre-2017 era covered by the older case law.
This shift is likely to trigger bigger claims. And it may spark new lawsuits entirely.
Google fights back.
Kent Walker, the company’s global affairs president, rejects the characterization of the fine as fair competition. He argues the EU is forcing Google to strip away features users actually like.
Real-time pricing. Hotel availability. Flight search results.
Walker calls this product degradation, not regulation.
The Commission sees it differently. Teresa Ribera, the executive vice-president for a Clean, Fair and Competitive Transition in Brussels, stressed a simple point. Products should win on merit. They shouldn’t win because one company owns the search engine everyone uses.
The courts in Europe are now tasked with deciding which view holds more weight in the ledger of billions.
