Google fined €2.4bn for exploitation and abuse of dominant position in shopping comparison service

The European Court of Justice confirmed a decision of the European Commission back in June 2017 when it ruled that Google had unfairly prioritised its own comparison shopping service over competitors’ in 13 countries within the European Economic Area (EEA). Google promoted its service with prominent display boxes featuring images and text, while rival services were relegated to basic blue links, often pushed down in search results by Google’s algorithms.

The Commission found Google had abused its dominant market position in online searches, imposing a fine of €2.42 billion, with Alphabet (Google’s parent company) jointly responsible for €523 million. Google and Alphabet appealed to the General Court of the European Union, which largely upheld the Commission’s decision in November 2021, though it did not find conclusive evidence that Google’s actions affected the general search market.

Google and Alphabet then appealed to the European Court of Justice. However, the Court dismissed the appeal, supporting the General Court’s ruling. The Court emphasised that EU law prohibits the abuse of a dominant position, particularly when it harms competition and consumers. It affirmed that, in this case, Google’s favouring of its own services was anti-competitive.

The Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, supporting the General Court’s ruling. It reiterated that under EU law, the mere existence of a dominant position is not unlawful, but the abusive exploitation of that position is. The Court clarified that exploitative behaviour, distinct from exclusionary behaviour in Competition Law, is prohibited when it hinders competition on the merits and is likely to cause harm to individual undertakings and consumers. In this case, Google’s favouring of its own services over competitors was deemed anti-competitive and not within the scope of fair market competition.

Navigating the Legal Landscape: Critical Raw Materials and Their Role in Global Energy Security

Historically, the energy sector focused on securing fossil fuels—oil, gas, and coal—to meet global demands. However, driven by the Paris Agreement and national commitments (NDCs) to carbon reduction, countries are transitioning to renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and geothermal. While these technologies rely on abundant natural resources, they require critical raw materials (CRMs) such as rare earth elements and platinum group metals (PGMs). This introduces new vulnerabilities, as CRMs are costly and their supply is concentrated in a few countries, making renewable technologies less accessible and more expensive.

The growing demand for CRMs has moved their trade to the center of global priorities. International trade plays a key role in bridging the gap between widespread demand and concentrated supply. This reliance on trade is particularly urgent in the short to medium term, as expanding mining and recycling capacities can take years. Global supply chains are highly interconnected, but many CRMs are controlled by a handful of countries, such as China for rare earth elements and the Democratic Republic of Congo for cobalt.

This concentration of supply creates market power dynamics, allowing resource-rich countries to manipulate prices or limit availability, either for economic gain or as a geopolitical bargaining tool. Trade tensions, such as those between the U.S. and China, have already sparked concerns about access to CRMs critical to industries like defense, electronics, and clean energy.

To mitigate risks, several strategies are being pursued:

  • Supply chain diversification through new sources and international partnerships,
  • Increased recycling capacity to ease the demand for newly mined CRMs,
  • Stockpiling reserves to protect against future shortages, and
  • International cooperation to ensure stable and fair access to CRMs.

In the U.S., the Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpiling Act, originally focused on national defense, was expanded in March 2022 to include critical minerals for clean energy technologies. This interagency effort between the Departments of Energy, State, and Defense reflects the growing importance of CRMs for both military and energy needs. Stockpiling these materials stabilizes prices and supports domestic industries, spurring innovation and the development of supply chains for extraction, processing, and recycling.

Similarly, the EU responded with the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) in May 2024, aiming to secure diversified and sustainable CRM supply chains. The Act targets reduced reliance on China by fostering partnerships with resource-rich countries and setting ambitious goals for domestic CRM production—10% from local extraction and 15% from recycling by 2030. Strategic Projects in the EU and beyond will benefit from easier financing and faster permitting processes. The EU will also create a Joint Purchasing Mechanism to aggregate demand and negotiate with suppliers, similar to mechanisms used during the Ukraine crisis.

Growing demand for critical materials calls for better stewardship within a circular economy framework. Both the U.S. and the EU are making significant efforts to secure access to CRMs, essential for their clean energy transitions and broader industrial needs. These policies are critical to building resilient and sustainable supply chains in an increasingly competitive global market.

Dalli Advocates can assist in the energy sector and provides advice on both regulatory and transactional matters.

School fined €50,000 for data protection infringement 

Complainant sought access to her son’s occupational and speech therapy sessions files, which service was provided by the school he attended. The Commissioner highlighted a “serious lack of diligence” by the school, noting several deficiencies. A €50,000 fine was imposed, with an additional €50 for each day the violation persisted.

Continue reading

Dispute on property description lands owners in Court 

The First Hall Civil Court affirmed that indeed the description referred to a state of co-ownership. This decision was supported by the historical and structural context of the building, as the properties were originally designed as separate tenements for various families or “kerrejja,” as testified by witnesses during the proceedings.

Continue reading