BRUSSELS, Belgium — November 13, 2026 — Google is facing renewed legal pressure in the European Union after an adviser to the bloc’s highest court recommended overturning a lower court judgment that had annulled a €1.49 billion ($1.7 billion) antitrust fine against the American technology company.
The recommendation, delivered on November 12 by Advocate General Juliane Kokott at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), represents a significant development in the long-running dispute between Google and European competition regulators over its online advertising business.
The case concerns Google's AdSense for Search platform and contractual provisions that the European Commission said restricted competing advertising services from accessing publisher websites.
Kokott proposed that the Court of Justice set aside the General Court's September 2024 judgment and return the case for a fresh examination. Her position challenges the reasoning behind the earlier decision, which had overturned the Commission's 2019 enforcement decision.
However, the recommendation does not automatically restore the fine. The Court of Justice must still issue its own judgment, and the final outcome will determine the next legal steps.
The dispute is important beyond the financial penalty. It raises questions about how dominant digital platforms negotiate commercial agreements, how competition authorities demonstrate exclusionary conduct, and how European courts assess the relationship between market dominance and restrictions imposed on business partners.
EU Court Adviser Challenges the 2024 Decision
The latest development centers on Case C-826/24 P, European Commission v Google and Alphabet, concerning the Commission's enforcement action against Google's AdSense for Search business.
On November 12, Advocate General Juliane Kokott issued an opinion stating that the General Court had made errors in its assessment of the Commission's findings.
The European Commission had originally imposed a fine of almost €1.5 billion in March 2019 after concluding that contractual restrictions used by Google infringed European competition rules.
Google and its parent company, Alphabet, challenged the decision before the General Court. In September 2024, that court annulled the Commission's decision.
The Commission subsequently appealed to the Court of Justice, seeking to have the lower court's judgment overturned.
Kokott's November 2026 opinion supports the Commission's appeal on the central legal issue. She considers that the General Court applied excessive requirements when evaluating the duration of the conduct and did not sufficiently connect its conclusions with the criteria used to establish whether a company held a dominant position.
Source attribution: The position described above comes from Advocate General Kokott's official opinion, published by the Court of Justice of the European Union on November 12, 2026.
The recommendation is legally significant, but it remains advisory. It is not a final ruling against Google.
How Google's AdSense Business Became the Focus
Google's AdSense business has played an important role in connecting website publishers with online advertisers.
Through AdSense for Search, website operators with integrated search functions could display advertisements supplied through Google's advertising infrastructure when visitors conducted searches on their websites.
The arrangement allowed participating publishers to receive a share of advertising revenue generated through the service.
To participate, publishers entered into Google Services Agreements with Google. According to the European Commission's investigation, certain contractual provisions restricted the ability of publishers to display advertisements from competing search advertising services.
The Commission identified three categories of contractual provisions:
- Exclusivity clauses that restricted the display of competing advertisements.
- Placement clauses that influenced where advertisements from competing services could appear.
- Prior authorization clauses that required approval for certain competing advertising placements.
The Commission argued that these restrictions reduced opportunities for rival advertising intermediaries to compete for access to publisher websites.
The issue was not simply whether Google could provide advertising services to publishers. It was whether contractual conditions imposed by a company with significant market power could restrict competition in a way prohibited by European law.
Why publisher agreements mattered
Publisher websites provide access to audiences, search activity, and advertising opportunities.
If competing advertising providers cannot obtain meaningful access to those publishers, their ability to attract advertisers and expand their services may be affected.
That possibility formed part of the Commission's competition concerns.
However, establishing an infringement requires more than identifying restrictive contractual language. Regulators must demonstrate that the conduct satisfies the applicable legal requirements, including the relevant assessment of dominance and exclusionary effects.
The Timeline Behind the €1.49 Billion Penalty
The dispute developed over several years, beginning with Google's advertising agreements and continuing through multiple stages of European judicial review.
The European Commission identified the relevant practices as extending from 2006 to 2016.
In March 2019, the Commission concluded that Google had committed competition law infringements through contractual provisions connected with AdSense for Search.
It imposed a fine of almost €1.5 billion, with Alphabet jointly and severally liable for part of the penalty.
Google challenged the Commission's decision.
On September 18, 2024, the General Court annulled the decision after finding problems with the Commission's examination of relevant circumstances, particularly the assessment of the duration of the contractual relationship.
The Commission then brought an appeal before the Court of Justice.
On November 12, 2026, Advocate General Kokott issued her opinion recommending that the General Court's judgment be set aside and that the matter be referred back for a fresh judgment.
The next major stage is the Court of Justice's final decision, which is expected in 2027 according to the current reporting.
The sequence demonstrates why the case cannot yet be described as a final restoration of the original penalty.
The legal dispute remains active, and its outcome depends on the judges' assessment of the appeal.
What Advocate General Juliane Kokott Actually Recommended
Advocate General Juliane Kokott plays an important advisory role within the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Advocates General provide independent legal opinions in cases assigned to them. Their opinions assist the judges by examining the applicable law, the arguments presented by the parties, and the legal questions requiring resolution.
In this case, Kokott concluded that the General Court had made an error when assessing the Commission's findings concerning the duration of Google's contractual restrictions.
She also considered that the lower court had not sufficiently connected its conclusions with the legal criteria for establishing a dominant market position.
Her recommendation was that the Court of Justice should set aside the challenged judgment and refer the case back to the General Court for a new decision.
An advisory opinion is not a binding judgment
The distinction is essential for understanding the current news.
Kokott does not have the authority to reinstate the fine through her opinion alone.
The judges of the Court of Justice must independently consider the appeal and issue a binding decision.
Although Advocate General opinions are influential and the Court frequently follows their reasoning, judges are not legally required to adopt the recommendation.
Consequently, Google has not automatically lost its 2024 victory, and the Commission has not yet secured final judicial confirmation of the original penalty.
Google's Legal Position and the Competition Debate
Google's position in the dispute has focused on challenging the Commission's conclusions and defending the lower court's decision.
During the earlier appeal proceedings, Google's lawyer Josh Holmes rejected the Commission's arguments.
According to Reuters reporting on the proceedings, Holmes argued that the Commission's new arguments were flawed and that the General Court's reasoning was clear and complete.
Google has also maintained that the contested contractual provisions concerned a limited number of websites and specific categories of advertisements. The company removed or amended the relevant clauses in 2016.
These arguments are important because competition cases involving large digital platforms require a detailed assessment of actual market circumstances.
A contractual restriction does not automatically establish an infringement in every commercial situation. Its legal significance depends on the market context, the company's position, the nature of the restrictions, and their potential or demonstrated effects on competition.
The Commission, meanwhile, has argued that the contractual provisions formed part of a wider pattern of conduct capable of restricting competing advertising services.
Balancing commercial freedom and competition protection
Businesses generally have the freedom to negotiate commercial agreements, determine their products, and establish contractual conditions.
However, European competition law places additional obligations on companies holding a dominant position.
Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union prohibits the abuse of a dominant position where the conduct may affect trade between EU member states.
The legal question is not whether a company is successful or whether it has a large market share alone.
Instead, authorities must assess whether the company has abused its dominant position through conduct that falls within the prohibition.
The Google AdSense case illustrates the difficulty of applying those principles to complex digital advertising markets.
Why the Case Matters for Online Advertising Competition
The dispute has implications for more than Google and the European Commission.
Online advertising involves multiple participants, including advertisers, publishers, technology intermediaries, and companies providing advertising infrastructure.
Competition between these participants can influence how publishers monetize their websites and how advertisers reach consumers.
When a major platform controls important advertising services, contractual conditions may become particularly relevant.
The Commission's position is that Google's historic contractual provisions restricted opportunities for competing services to reach publishers.
If the Court ultimately accepts the Commission's legal arguments, the decision could reinforce the importance of examining contractual restrictions imposed by dominant digital companies.
It could also influence how competition regulators investigate advertising technology markets and evaluate agreements between platforms and business partners.
Potential consequences for publishers
For website publishers, the dispute highlights the importance of understanding commercial agreements with advertising providers.
Publishers may benefit from access to multiple advertising services, depending on their website traffic, audience, business model, and technical requirements.
Competition between advertising providers can create additional opportunities for publishers to negotiate commercial terms.
However, the case does not establish that every publisher experienced financial losses or that every advertising agreement involving Google was unlawful.
Those conclusions would require evidence beyond the information established in the current proceedings.
The wider significance is that competition enforcement can affect the structure of digital advertising markets and the contractual relationships supporting them.
The Legal Consequences and What Could Happen Next
The immediate question is whether the Court of Justice will follow Kokott's recommendation.
There are several possible legal developments.
First, the Court could accept the Advocate General's central recommendation and set aside the General Court's 2024 judgment.
If that happens, the matter could return to the General Court for a fresh examination in accordance with the legal conclusions established by the Court of Justice.
Second, the Court could reach a different conclusion from the Advocate General and reject the Commission's appeal.
That outcome could preserve the legal effect of the 2024 annulment, subject to the precise terms of the final judgment.
Third, the Court could address the appeal in a manner that changes the scope of the issues requiring further examination.
The final legal consequences will depend on the actual judgment rather than assumptions about the likely outcome.
The importance of Article 102 TFEU
Article 102 is central to the dispute because it governs the abuse of a dominant position within the EU internal market.
Its application requires a careful distinction between lawful competitive behavior and conduct that improperly restricts competition.
A company can hold a strong market position without automatically violating competition law.
However, a dominant company may face legal scrutiny if its conduct uses that position to exclude competitors or restrict effective competition.
The AdSense dispute therefore concerns the evidence and legal assessment necessary to establish abuse, not simply the size of Google's advertising business.
Any eventual financial penalty must also satisfy the relevant legal requirements and proportionality principles.
The original €1.49 billion penalty should therefore not be presented as an amount that has already been definitively reinstated.
What the November 2026 Development Means for Google
The November 12 opinion represents another important stage in Google's relationship with European competition authorities.
The company has faced several major antitrust proceedings in Europe concerning different products and business practices.
The AdSense case is distinct from Google's Android competition dispute, which concerned restrictions associated with mobile operating systems, search applications, and device distribution agreements.
It is also separate from proceedings under the EU Digital Markets Act.
These distinctions matter because different investigations involve different legal frameworks, evidence, and remedies.
The AdSense proceedings specifically concern historical contractual restrictions in online search advertising intermediation.
For Google and Alphabet, the immediate issue is the possibility that the original Commission enforcement decision could regain legal significance following further judicial review.
For the European Commission, the appeal represents an opportunity to challenge the lower court's interpretation of the evidence and the applicable competition law principles.
For publishers and other advertising market participants, the case highlights the continuing importance of fair access and competitive opportunities in digital advertising.
A decision still awaited in 2027
The most important remaining development is the final judgment of the Court of Justice.
Until the judges issue that decision, neither the Commission's appeal nor Kokott's recommendation should be treated as a final determination that Google must pay the original fine.
The proceedings may also require additional judicial consideration if the case is returned to the General Court.
The final result could influence how European competition law is applied to contractual restrictions imposed by dominant online advertising platforms.
Google's AdSense Fine Returns to the Legal Spotlight
Google's €1.49 billion AdSense antitrust dispute has entered a new phase following Advocate General Juliane Kokott's November 12, 2026, opinion supporting the European Commission's appeal.
Her recommendation challenges the General Court's September 2024 decision to annul the original penalty and proposes a fresh examination of the case.
The dispute centers on whether Google's historical contractual restrictions prevented competing advertising services from accessing publisher websites and whether the Commission sufficiently established the relevant competition law violations.
Nevertheless, the opinion is advisory rather than binding. The Court of Justice must still issue its final judgment, expected in 2027.
For now, the case remains an important test of European competition law, the responsibilities of dominant technology platforms, and the future regulation of online advertising markets.
The final outcome will determine whether the Commission's original enforcement decision can move forward or whether the 2024 annulment remains effective.