EU's DMA Bites: Google Slammed with $1B Fine Over Self-Preferencing and Anti-Steering

For legal professionals, this case represents a pivotal moment in EU digital regulation. The DMA's first major fine tests the law's enforcement mechanisms and clarifies the boundaries of acceptable platform behavior. With a 60-day compliance window and the threat of escalating penalties, Google faces immediate operational challenges that will shape corporate compliance strategies across the tech sector.

The European Commission's landmark decision to fine Google a combined €890 million ($1 billion) for breaching the Digital Markets Act marks a pivotal escalation in the EU's regulatory crackdown on Big Tech gatekeepers. Announced on July 23, 2026, the penalty is split into two distinct violations: a €460 million fine for systematically favoring its own services—such as shopping, hotels, transport, and sports results—in Google Search over third-party competitors, and a €430 million fine for preventing app developers on Google Play from informing users about cheaper alternatives outside its proprietary billing system. This dual action underscores the EU's determination to enforce the DMA's core principle that platforms must treat rivals fairly and not exploit their gatekeeper position.

“

Failure to remedy the identified breaches could trigger periodic penalty payments of up to 5% of its total worldwide turnover—a sum that, based on Alphabet's 2025 revenue of over $300 billion, could amount to upwards of $15 billion annually.

The search-related infringement reveals how Google's algorithmic design gives prominent visibility to its vertical offerings, often at the expense of specialized third-party services, despite DMA Article 6(5) explicitly prohibiting self-preferencing. European Commission investigators concluded that this practice not only distorts competition but also harms consumer choice by steering users towards Google-owned products regardless of merit. Similarly, the app-store violation targets so-called anti-steering rules, where Google imposed contractual restrictions that forbade developers from directing users to external payment methods or promotional offers, thereby locking in its 15-30% commission structure. The Commission's statement that "the best products should succeed because they're better, not because they're owned by the company running the search engine," quoted by Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera, encapsulates the DMA's philosophical shift from after-the-fact antitrust enforcement to ex ante obligations on gatekeepers.

Google now faces a tight 60-day compliance deadline, expiring around September 21, 2026. Failure to remedy the identified breaches could trigger periodic penalty payments of up to 5% of its total worldwide turnover—a sum that, based on Alphabet's 2025 revenue of over $300 billion, could amount to upwards of $15 billion annually. While the initial fines are relatively modest for a company with over $80 billion in annual net income, the structural changes required—such as redesigning search results pages and allowing developers to include in-app links to external websites—could strike at the heart of Google's advertising and services revenue models. The Commission has ordered Google to present concrete measures by the deadline, and any legal challenge would not suspend the obligation to comply, under DMA rules.

This enforcement action is the most significant DMA penalty since the regulation became applicable to gatekeepers, and it builds on a series of earlier EU antitrust cases. The DMA, which entered into force in 2022 and became fully applicable in 2024, designated companies like Alphabet as gatekeepers and imposed a list of dos and don'ts. Unlike traditional competition law, the DMA empowers the Commission to impose structural remedies and significant fines without proving consumer harm, streamlining enforcement. Google's previous fines—€2.42 billion in 2017 for shopping search bias, €4.34 billion in 2018 for Android bundling, and €1.49 billion in 2019 for ad practices—show a pattern, but those were under Article 102 TFEU. The DMA is designed to be more proactive and adaptable.