Swedish Court Orders Google to Pay $2 Billion in Damages

The Patent and Market Court in Stockholm, Sweden, issued a ruling on July 6, local time, ordering Google to pay approximately $2 billion (about 288 billion yen) in damages to the comparison shopping site Pricerunner. Bloomberg reported the development.

Pricerunner asserted that Google had unfairly favored its own comparison shopping service, discriminating against independent price comparison sites for over a decade. Klarna, Pricerunner’s parent company, stated after the ruling, “Google’s self-preferencing practices have increased costs for consumers, and this compensation addresses the revenue lost as a result.”

Initially, Pricerunner had sought damages amounting to 81 billion Swedish kronor (approximately $8.2 billion), citing the EU antitrust crackdown. However, the court dismissed the majority of these claims. A Google spokesperson commented, “We disagree with the court’s decision and are exploring legal options,” signaling the possibility of an appeal.

Follow-On Lawsuit Stemming from 2017 EU Sanctions

This case originates from the European Commission’s 2017 decision to fine Google €2.4 billion (approximately $3.9 billion) for abusing its market dominance in search and favoring its own shopping service over competitors. Following that decision, a wave of follow-on lawsuits by competitors like Pricerunner was filed across Europe.

These lawsuits had been delayed for years as Google appealed the EU’s sanctions. However, in 2024, the European Court of Justice, the EU’s highest court, upheld the violation. This meant that plaintiffs no longer needed to prove antitrust violations in court, accelerating the wave of follow-on lawsuits.

Last year, a Berlin court ordered Google to pay €573 million (approximately $930 million) in damages to two German price comparison sites. However, Google has also appealed that ruling, and similar lawsuits are ongoing across Europe.

In response to the recent ruling, Google stated, “The changes we introduced in 2017 have been working effectively, driving growth and employment across hundreds of comparison shopping services operating more than 1,500 websites across Europe.”

The Weight of Platform Responsibility

Highlighted by the Ruling

This ruling is significant as it adds to the growing body of judicial decisions addressing the “self-preferencing” practices of major platforms.

In the comparison shopping market, Google has prioritized its own shopping ads and product listings at the top of search results, implementing algorithm changes since 2017 that make it harder for competing sites to rank higher in organic search results. However, the European Commission concluded that these measures were insufficient and determined that competitors were not treated equally.

As Klarna pointed out, steering users toward its own services narrows the range of price comparison options available to consumers, potentially driving up product prices. This rationale strikes at the heart of competition policy in the digital market.

Editorial Opinion

In the short term, this ruling may accelerate the proceedings of other follow-on lawsuits. Although Google is almost certain to appeal the decision, the precedent set by the European Court of Justice’s endorsement of the EU sanctions suggests that plaintiffs will continue to hold an advantage in appeals proceedings. While the $2 billion in damages awarded to Pricerunner is only about a quarter of the amount it initially sought, the cumulative damages from similar lawsuits across Europe could reach tens of billions of dollars.

In the long term, attention should be paid to the relationship between this ruling and the European Digital Markets Act (DMA). The DMA prohibits gatekeeper companies from engaging in self-preferencing in sectors such as search, app stores, and messaging. This ruling is likely to be cited as a precedent in the enforcement of the DMA. Furthermore, it remains to be seen whether competition authorities in Japan or other regions will strengthen self-preferencing regulations in the search market, drawing inspiration from Europe’s actions.

From the editorial team’s perspective, this case brings the fundamental question of how far the law should ensure “fairness” on platforms back into the spotlight. While prioritizing its own services might enhance user experience in some respects, it could also stifle competition and innovation among rivals, ultimately undermining market diversity in the long term.

References

• Google Ordered to Pay $2 Billion For Anti-Competitive Practices By Swedish Court - Slashdot — Published July 6, 2026
• Google Wallet Introduces Custom Ticket Features for Ticketmaster
• Google Research Releases TimesFM 2.5, A Time-Series Prediction Model
• Google’s New Home Speaker Falls Short of Audio Quality Compared to 6-Year-Old Nest Audio