Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
On September 5, 2025, the European Commission fined Google €2.95 billion for abusing dominant positions in parts of the online advertising-technology supply chain. Contemporary coverage converted that amount to roughly $3.4 billion to $3.5 billion, depending on the exchange rate. The case concerns Google’s alleged self-preferencing of its AdX advertising exchange through publisher and advertiser tools—not Google Search advertising generally.
The penalty addresses past conduct, but the more consequential question is the remedy. The Commission ordered Google to stop the practices and address conflicts of interest across its adtech businesses, while leaving open the possibility of structural measures if behavioral changes do not work.
What the European Commission decided
The decision, case AT.40670, was made under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which prohibits abuse of a dominant position. Article 54 of the European Economic Area Agreement was also referenced. The Commission’s summary is available at the European Commission’s decision notice.
Being large is not, by itself, illegal under EU competition law. The regulator’s theory was that Google controlled important positions on multiple sides of the transaction and used that vertical position to favor its own exchange, disadvantage rival exchanges and strengthen its ability to charge fees.
#1 Best Overall
What the $3.5 billion headline means
The legally imposed amount is €2.95 billion. “$3.5 billion” is a rounded dollar conversion used in contemporary reporting, including TechCrunch’s coverage. The euro amount is the figure that governs the Commission decision.
How the adtech chain works
When someone opens a news article, several automated systems may compete to place an advertisement in the available space:
- Publisher ad server: Software that manages a website or app’s inventory, determines which eligible ad can be shown and records the result. Google’s relevant product was DFP, now associated with Google Ad Manager.
- Advertiser buying tools: Platforms used by advertisers and agencies to buy impressions automatically. The case names Google Ads and Display & Video 360 (DV360).
- Ad exchange: A real-time marketplace where buyers submit bids for impressions supplied by publishers. Google’s AdX was the exchange at issue.
In simplified form: advertiser → Google Ads or DV360 → exchange auction → publisher ad server → publisher inventory. Google operated tools at each of these stages, creating the conflict-of-interest concern examined by the Commission.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →What the Commission found
The findings below are the Commission’s conclusions in its administrative decision. Google disputes them and said it would appeal.
Information advantage in the publisher ad server
According to the regulator, DFP gave AdX advance information about the best competing bid that AdX needed to beat. That could let AdX adjust its bid with knowledge unavailable to rival exchanges.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
Preference on the buying side
The Commission said Google Ads generally avoided, or only rarely used, competing exchanges while directing a disproportionate share of bidding activity to AdX. It also alleged that DV360 favored AdX in how it submitted bids.
Why the combination mattered
The Commission’s case was not simply that AdX was successful. It was that Google’s publisher-side and buyer-side products could reinforce the exchange’s position, weaken rivals and affect the prices and fees paid by participants. The regulator said the conduct harmed competitors, publishers and advertisers.
An illustrative auction
Imagine a publisher auction in which a rival exchange bids €1.00 and another bidder offers €1.05. If an exchange receives advance knowledge of the leading competing bid and can respond at €1.06, it has an information advantage. This example explains the alleged mechanism; it is not a reconstruction of a particular auction in the case.
Why self-preferencing matters legally
EU law distinguishes between lawful dominance and unlawful abuse. A dominant company may compete vigorously, but it may not use its position to distort competition through conduct that disadvantages rivals without adequate justification. The alleged conflict here was structural: one company supplied the publisher ad server, operated major buying tools and ran the exchange linking buyers and sellers.
That is why the case focuses on product rules and access conditions, not merely on Google’s market share. The Commission sought to determine whether Google’s integration gave AdX treatment that independent exchanges could not obtain on equal terms.
Why the Commission did not order an immediate breakup
The September 2025 decision ordered Google to end the identified self-preferencing practices and take measures addressing conflicts of interest across the adtech chain. Google was given 60 days to inform the Commission of its proposed compliance measures.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →EU competition enforcement generally considers a structural remedy, such as divestiture, when behavioral remedies are unavailable or unlikely to be effective. The Commission had indicated that selling part of the business could become necessary if conduct changes failed to resolve the conflict. Therefore, the decision was not an immediate order to sell AdX or another major asset.
Google’s response and the unresolved remedy
Google rejected the decision, said it would appeal and argued that advertisers and publishers have more alternatives than in the past. It also opposed a disruptive breakup, saying many businesses depend on its integrated tools. TechCrunch reported those positions shortly after the decision.
In November 2025, Google proposed product and interoperability changes rather than divestiture, according to Channel NewsAsia’s report. The proposal reportedly included allowing publishers to set different minimum prices for different bidders in Google Ad Manager and increasing interoperability.
The available reporting does not establish whether the Commission accepted that proposal or the final status of Google’s appeal as of August 18, 2026. Those outcomes require checking the Commission’s case register and the EU court docket; Google’s proposal should not be described as the final remedy.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsRank #4
What could change for publishers
Publishers may eventually see changes to auction rules, access to information, fees, reporting and the way Google products connect with rival demand sources. A meaningful remedy would be one that lets publishers use competing exchanges without losing access to Google demand and applies auction rules equally to AdX and rivals.
That does not guarantee higher publisher revenue. Results will depend on the measures actually adopted, the ability of rival exchanges to gain scale, each publisher’s inventory and consent configuration, and the economics of individual auctions.
What could change for advertisers
Advertisers and agencies could gain more practical access to publisher inventory through exchanges other than AdX, along with greater visibility into fees and auction outcomes. They may also face additional dashboards, contracts and reporting processes if campaigns are spread across more platforms.
There is no automatic guarantee of lower advertising costs or better performance. Campaign outcomes vary by market, inventory type, targeting, consent status and the buying tools used.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
What consumers may notice
This is an infrastructure case involving open-web display advertising. It is not primarily about the ranking of ordinary Google Search results. Most effects would occur behind the scenes.
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
Over time, stronger competition could support more sustainable publisher businesses, improve ad quality or reduce some advertising costs. Consumers could also see little immediate change if compliance measures alter technical plumbing without changing the ads delivered on a particular site.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.EU and U.S. proceedings are related but separate
The European Commission said the conduct broadly resembled issues in the U.S. Department of Justice’s adtech case. Contemporary reporting described the DOJ as seeking stronger structural relief, potentially including a sale of AdX. The two proceedings use different legal processes and remedies; an outcome in one does not automatically determine the other.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 2021 | The Commission opens its formal adtech antitrust investigation. |
| June 2023 | The Commission sends Google a statement of objections. |
| December 2023 | Google responds to the statement of objections. |
| September 5, 2025 | The Commission imposes the €2.95 billion fine and orders conduct and conflict-of-interest remedies. |
| November 2025 | Google submits a proposal emphasizing product changes and interoperability rather than divestiture. |
| August 18, 2026 | Final compliance and appeal status remains to be verified in official EU records. |
The Commission’s decision notice provides the investigation history and enforcement details: European Commission notice.
How to judge whether a remedy works
- Publishers can use competing exchanges without losing meaningful access to Google demand.
- AdX and rival exchanges face equivalent auction rules and access conditions.
- Advertisers can bid across exchanges without artificial preference.
- Fees, bid adjustments and auction outcomes are transparent enough to audit.
- Rivals can interoperate technically without discriminatory terms.
- The Commission can monitor compliance and detect preference hidden in product design.
Behavioral remedies may limit disruption for existing users but require complex, continuing oversight. A structural remedy could address the conflict more directly, while creating migration, contractual and operational risks. More competition can also mean more fragmented tools and reporting.
Do not confuse this case with the €890 million DMA fine
On July 23, 2026, the Commission announced a separate €890 million fine under the Digital Markets Act involving Google Search self-preferencing and Google Play anti-steering conduct. That decision is distinct from the 2025 adtech case; its announcement is at the Commission’s DMA page.
How large was the fine by EU standards?
Contemporary coverage described the €2.95 billion penalty as the EU’s second-largest antitrust fine against Google, behind the roughly $5 billion penalty imposed in 2018 in the Android case. That ranking is date-sensitive because later decisions and court rulings can change comparative amounts.
Quick Recap
What businesses should watch now
- Changes to Google Ad Manager auction and pricing rules.
- New interoperability requirements or technical interfaces.
- Altered access to bid information, reporting and log-level data.
- Contract, fee or exclusivity changes affecting demand partners.
- Commission decisions on whether behavioral measures adequately remove the conflict.
- Any EU court ruling on Google’s appeal or later structural remedy.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
