Global Issues
Europe Fined Google, but Its Gate Still Stands -By Fransiscus Nanga Roka
The DMA’s credibility will not be measured by the size of its press-release numbers. It will be measured by whether Google can still own the marketplace, compete inside it, write its rules and decide who remains visible.
Google has been fined €890 million (close to $1 billion) by Europe for breaking the Digital Markets Act. The number sounds ferocious. Though, with revenue for Alphabet formally reported around $403 billion in 2025 it is barely more than 0.22%: less a corporate disincentive and potentially more a regulatory bill.
The who: a company called Google, dubbed a digital “gatekeeper” by the European Commission. The what is two non-compliance decisions €890 million The when was July 23, 2026. The where is the European Economic Area, but the effects extend to every jurisdiction facing concentrated digital power. The why is that Google has been using these platforms on which people depend to further its own interests at the expense of a viable means of escape from those same arenas. And the how is search-result design plus Google Play rules, which can obliquely dictate what businesses consumers see and how much they pay.
The first fine of €460 million, is on self-preferencing. The Commission found that Google Search consistently elevated Google’s own services in particular, shopping, hotels and transportation above rival comparison services.
This is not merely about webpage aesthetics. Placement is market power. A colorful box, specialized filter or privileged position above conventional links can divert millions of users before competitors receive a meaningful opportunity to compete. Google is not simply participating in these downstream markets; it controls the road leading to them.
The second €430 million penalty targets Google Play’s anti-steering restrictions. The Commission concluded that app developers were prevented from freely informing users about cheaper subscriptions or purchasing options outside Google Play.
That architecture converts consumer captivity into commission revenue. When a gatekeeper controls access to users, restricts price communication and charges for transactions occurring behind the gate, “choice” becomes theatrical.
Google has argued that DMA-mandated changes degrade popular services and may force the removal or redesign of useful real-time search features. That objection deserves examination but not blind acceptance. Every monopolist can portray discriminatory integration as consumer convenience. The proper test is whether the same functionality can survive without systematically disadvantaging rivals.
The Commission gave Google 60 days to comply. Continued non compliance can trigger periodic penalty payments of up to 5% of average daily worldwide turnover. Google may appeal, but an appeal must not become a business strategy for preserving unlawful advantages while litigation crawls through Europe’s courts.
Yet Brussels should not celebrate prematurely. A €890 million fine is meaningful only if it changes Google’s conduct. Otherwise, it becomes another entry in a long ledger of penalties that dominant platforms can absorb while retaining the structural benefits of past violations.
Europe therefore needs remedies deeper than interface adjustments. First, the Commission should require independently audited, outcome-based search neutrality testing not merely accept Google’s description of its redesign. Rival services must receive demonstrably equivalent opportunities for visibility.
Second, Google Play must permit developers to communicate and link to external offers without discriminatory fees, warning screens or technical friction designed to frighten consumers back into Google’s payment system.
Third, compliance data, ranking experiments and enforcement metrics should be accessible to regulators and qualified independent researchers. Algorithmic discrimination cannot be supervised through corporate assurances.
Finally, repeated infringement should trigger stronger remedies: escalating fines based on profits gained, personal accountability for executives overseeing non-compliance, acquisition restrictions and, where behavioral remedies repeatedly fail, structural separation between gatekeeping infrastructure and businesses competing through it.
The DMA’s credibility will not be measured by the size of its press-release numbers. It will be measured by whether Google can still own the marketplace, compete inside it, write its rules and decide who remains visible.
Fransiscus Nanga Roka
Faculty of Law University 17 August 1945 Surabaya and Managing Partner Law Firm Victorious Indonesia
