The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has delivered its long-awaited judgment in the Google Android case. The judgment upholds the General Court’s 2022 ruling, which had largely confirmed the European Commission’s 2018 decision against Google for abusing its multiple dominant positions in relation to the Android mobile operating system.
The European Court of Justice has today delivered its judgment in Google Android, upholding the General Court ruling which largely confirmed the European Commission’s landmark 2018 abuse of dominance decision.
The ECJ upheld the General Court judgment, confirming a fine of EUR 4.125bn on Google for abusing its dominant position by imposing unlawful restrictions on Android device manufacturers (OEMs) and mobile network operators (MNOs).
The confirmed abuses concerned the tying of Google Search and Chrome with the Play Store, and “anti-fragmentation” obligations linked to licensing of the Play Store and Google Search. The General Court had previously annulled a third abuse found by the Commission relating to revenue share payments.
The ECJ clarified several fundamental points of law confirming that neither a counterfactual nor an as-efficient competitor (AEC) analysis is mandatory under Article 102, and a single and continuous infringement finding can survive the annulment of a constituent part.
The judgment brings to a close a (more than) decade-long saga concerning Android contractual restrictions and clears the way for the Commission to finalise its revised guidelines on exclusionary abuses, expected in Q3.
In 2018, the Commission found that Google had imposed unlawful preinstallation and licensing restrictions on Android OEMs and MNOs, reinforcing its dominance in general search. The Commission found abusive restrictions across three types of agreements between Google and OEMs/MNOs which, together, constituted a single and continuous infringement:
- Mobile Application Distribution Agreements (MADAs): access to the Play Store was tied to the preinstallation of Google Search and Chrome, giving rise to two distinct tying infringements.
- Anti-Fragmentation Agreements (AFAs): preinstallation of the Play Store and Google Search was conditional on OEMs agreeing not to sell devices running incompatible Android forks, i.e. versions of Android that did not comply with Android baseline compatibility standards.
- Revenue Share Agreements (RSAs): portfolio-based revenue share payments to OEMs and MNOs were conditional on no preinstallation of competing general search services, treated as exclusivity payments.
On appeal, the General Court largely upheld the Commission’s decision, annulling only the RSAs abuse – finding the Commission had failed adequately to assess market coverage and had erred in its AEC analysis – while upholding the single and continuous infringement finding. Google appealed to the Court of Justice. In June 2025, Advocate General Kokott recommended dismissal in its entirety.
In dismissing Google’s appeal, the ECJ adopted much of the reasoning of Advocate General Kokott. The judgment clarifies several fundamental points of law which are central to the assessment of exclusionary abuses.