Fri 17 Jul 2026 / 22:30 ET
Kernel
Long Reads 3 min read

EU court ends Google’s Android appeal over $4.7 billion fine

The European Court of Justice dismissed Google and Alphabet’s challenge to a 4.1 billion euro Android antitrust penalty.

Mara Chen-Doyle

By Mara Chen-Doyle / Staff Writer

The European Court of Justice has dismissed Google and Alphabet’s appeal over a 4.1 billion euro, or about $4.67 billion, antitrust fine tied to Android, leaving the company with no further route to challenge the penalty in the EU courts, according to CNBC.

The decision locks in one of the European Commission’s biggest competition cases against a U.S. technology company. For phone makers, app developers and Android users in Europe, the fight was about the plumbing behind the phone: which apps appear by default, what manufacturers must agree to, and how much room rivals get before a user even opens the box.

The European Commission imposed the penalty in 2018 after finding that Google used Android’s position in mobile devices to benefit its own apps through pre-installation agreements with smartphone manufacturers. The case centered on Google’s control of key Android commercial terms, rather than the open-source code alone. That distinction matters, because the phone in a customer’s hand is shaped less by theory about openness and more by the contracts manufacturers sign to ship it.

Google appealed through the EU court system. In 2022, a lower EU court cut the fine from 4.34 billion euros to 4.1 billion euros. On Thursday, the European Court of Justice, the bloc’s top court, rejected the company’s remaining appeal.

In a press release cited by CNBC, the court said it had dismissed the appeal brought by Google and Alphabet and confirmed the penalty as revised by the General Court for anticompetitive practices related to Android.

Alphabet shares were about 1% lower in premarket trading after the decision, according to CNBC.

Google says Android remains open

Google has argued that Android gives users choice and helps developers and businesses in Europe. A Google spokesperson told CNBC that Android provides choice and supports thousands of businesses, and said the judgment did not recognize Google’s investment in keeping Android open, interoperable and free.

The spokesperson also said Google changed its agreements to comply with the Commission’s original 2018 decision and would keep focusing on innovation and openness for users, partners and developers.

Google has made some changes in response to the Commission’s concerns over the years, including allowing Android users to change search engines and browsers so they are not locked to Google’s own apps, according to CNBC.

Brussels shifts tools, not targets

The Android case began after the European Commission opened proceedings against Google in 2015. The Commission has continued to pursue Google across other parts of its business. Last year, it fined the company 2.95 billion euros over alleged anti-competitive conduct in advertising technology, CNBC reported.

Antitrust remains part of Brussels’ playbook, but the Commission is also using newer laws, including the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act, to police large technology companies. Apple and Meta are also under scrutiny under that broader regulatory push, according to CNBC.

Alex Haffner, a partner at Fladgate, told CNBC the Android decision marks the end of what he described as the Commission’s first-stage fight with big tech, where traditional competition powers were used to address conduct that regulators said harmed competition in EU markets. He said the Commission’s attention has more recently shifted toward legislative tools, particularly the Digital Services Act.

The EU’s pressure on U.S. technology companies has also drawn criticism from U.S. officials. CNBC reported that President Donald Trump last month threatened a 100% tariff on goods from countries that impose a digital services tax on U.S. companies. France and Spain have such taxes. In March, U.S. ambassador to the EU Andrew Puzder told CNBC that Europe could not overregulate and impose large fines if it wanted to take part in the AI economy.

This story draws on original reporting from Daring Fireball.

More Long Reads/

view all ↗