
欧盟法院终审维持41亿欧元罚款,谷歌Android反垄断案落幕
欧洲法院驳回谷歌全部上诉理由,确认其通过预装协议滥用市场支配地位,该裁决被视为欧盟数字主权监管的里程碑。
欧盟最高司法机构欧洲法院于7月2日作出终审判决,驳回谷歌及其母公司Alphabet的上诉,维持约41.25亿欧元的反垄断罚款。该裁决为这场始于2018年的法律争端画上句号,罚款金额虽较最初的43.4亿欧元略有下调,但仍是欧盟历史上金额最高的反垄断处罚。法院认定,谷歌利用其Android移动操作系统,通过强制手机制造商预装谷歌搜索、Chrome浏览器及Play应用商店等限制性协议,非法巩固了自身在搜索引擎市场的主导地位。
围绕此案,各方立场截然分明。欧盟委员会及欧洲法院认为,谷歌的预装条件与反碎片化协议实质性地限制了竞争,利用了消费者倾向于保留默认应用的“现状偏见”,从而抬高了竞争对手的进入壁垒。欧洲消费者组织(BEUC)将裁决称为“欧洲的一大胜利”,并呼吁以更快速度遏制大型科技公司的权力。谷歌方面则回应称,判决未能充分认可其为保持Android系统开放、可互操作及免费所做出的重大投资,但强调公司早在2018年就已调整相关商业协议以符合欧盟要求。
此案对全球科技监管格局具有深远影响。对欧盟而言,终审裁决不仅强化了其竞争执法机构的权威,更为依据《数字市场法案》(DMA)对科技巨头实施前置性监管提供了司法背书。在亚洲,尤其是中国,监管机构正持续加强对平台经济的反垄断审查,欧盟的执法路径与司法逻辑可能为相关案例提供参照。分析人士指出,该判决表明,在数字市场中,通过控制操作系统这一“入口”来捆绑自家服务的行为,将面临越来越高的合规风险与法律成本。
谷歌在过去十年间已累计被欧盟处以约110亿欧元的反垄断罚款,涉及购物比价服务、搜索广告等多个领域。此次Android案的终结,标志着欧盟在针对美国科技巨头的漫长法律战中取得了一项关键性成果。尽管罚款金额不足Alphabet年营收的3%,但法律上的最终败诉可能激励其他地区的监管机构与商业索赔者采取行动。目前,该罚款已不可上诉,谷歌须履行支付义务,而欧盟针对谷歌在DMA框架下的多项新调查仍在推进中。
| 欧洲大陆媒体 | +0.30 | aligned |
|---|---|---|
| 大西洋/英语圈媒体 | −0.40 | critical |
| 俄罗斯及独联体媒体 | −0.20 | neutral |
The EU Court has ruled that competition rules apply to tech giants too, and Europe does not back down from anyone.
The ruling is presented as the logical conclusion of a transparent legal process, normalizing the fine as an ordinary policy tool.
It omits the potential negative impact on innovation and criticism from some member states about EU competence in digital matters.
Europe punishes American success with disproportionate fines while consumers lose free services.
It contrasts EU intervention with market freedom, portraying the fine as a protectionist barrier against US innovation.
It fails to acknowledge that the EU Commission based its decision on evidence of abuse of dominant position, not nationalism.
The European Union uses its courts to strike at American companies, showing that law is just a tool of power.
It frames the fine as an act of EU economic sovereignty, not an antitrust matter, suggesting Moscow could adopt similar tactics.
It does not discuss the merits of Google's abuse of dominant position, nor does it cite the technical evidence of the ruling.