Google asked a UK tribunal to exclude evidence from the European Commission's latest antitrust decision from its ongoing damages case with shopping comparison sites Kelkoo and Ciao. The tech company argues the new EU ruling cannot inform settlements of older claims rooted in separate legal proceedings.
The dispute centers on Google's search shopping practices. Kelkoo and Ciao claim Google unfairly demoted their services in search results to favor its own shopping product. They pursue damages through the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London.
The Commission fined Google 2.42 billion euros in 2017 for abusing dominance in shopping search. Google implemented remedies the Commission accepted. Yet Kelkoo and Ciao contend those fixes remain insufficient. They want the tribunal to consider the Commission's newer shopping decision as supporting evidence for their damages claim.
Google opposes introducing the recent EU ruling into the tribunal proceedings. The company maintains that the new decision addresses a distinct legal framework and separate conduct timeframes. Including it, Google argues, would improperly conflate two unrelated enforcement actions and create confusion about applicable legal standards.
Kelkoo and Ciao counter that the Commission's reasoning directly bears on whether Google's accepted remedies adequately addressed the original harm. They argue the newer decision provides expert assessment of the shopping market that validates their position that Google's practices caused ongoing competitive injury.
The tribunal must decide whether to admit the Commission's latest decision as evidence. This determination affects how broadly the panel can evaluate Google's historical conduct and the adequacy of its corrective measures.
The outcome carries practical weight for Google's exposure. If the tribunal admits the newer ruling, it gains leverage to argue damages based on the Commission's fresh analysis. If excluded, the tribunal relies solely on evidence from the original 2017 proceeding, potentially limiting the scope and quantum of any award.
Google faces similar shopping-related disputes