Major technology companies such as Google, Apple, Meta (formerly Facebook), and Microsoft have faced numerous antitrust investigations and legal actions across various jurisdictions. These cases address concerns over monopolistic practices, anti-competitive behaviour, and market dominance.
But first, let’s understand what antitrust laws are.
The Antitrust laws trace their origins to the U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. This landmark legislation prohibited business practices that restrained trade and outlawed attempts to establish monopolies. Over time, the Sherman Act evolved into the broader framework of antitrust laws, which have since been adopted by countries worldwide.
Below is a comprehensive overview of significant antitrust cases and their outcomes involving these tech giants in regions including the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada.
United States
a) In August 2024, a U.S. District Court ruled that Google held a monopoly in online search and text advertising, violating Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed significant structural changes, including the potential divestiture of Google’s Chrome browser and restrictions on exclusive deals.
b) The DOJ initiated an antitrust investigation into Google’s advertising technology practices, scrutinizing its dominance in the digital ad market.
c) The DOJ has proposed that Google be barred from forming exclusionary agreements with third parties such as Apple and Samsung. It also recommended prohibiting Google from prioritizing its search service within its own products.
Meta Platforms (formerly Facebook)
a) In December 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and 46 states filed an antitrust lawsuit against Meta, alleging monopolistic practices through the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The case seeks the divestiture of these platforms to restore competitive balance.
Microsoft
a) The FTC initiated an antitrust investigation into Microsoft’s Cloud services, software licensing, cybersecurity, and AI products in November 2024, reflecting ongoing concerns over potential anti-competitive conduct.
Apple
a) Apple is facing fresh legal challenges with a recent lawsuit accusing the company of illegally surveilling its employees’ personal devices and restricting their ability to discuss workplace issues. The new lawsuit was filed under a unique California law that allows employees to sue on behalf of the state and retain 35% of any penalties covered.
OpenAI
a) In November 2024, Elon Musk filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent OpenAI from transitioning to a for-profit entity, alleging violations of U.S. antitrust laws and anti-competitive practices in collaboration with Microsoft.
b) In response, OpenAI has dismissed these allegations as baseless and overreaching. In a statement to the New York Times, OpenAI said that Musk’s latest filing is his third attempt in less than a year to reframe his claims, all of which have been without merit.
European Union
a) The European Commission fined Google 2.42 billion euros for abusing its market dominance by favouring its own comparison shopping service over competitors. This decision was upheld by the European Court of Justice in September 2024.
b) The EU imposed a 4.34 billion euros fine on Google for using its Android OS to strengthen the dominance of its search engine, requiring pre-installation of Google Search and Chrome.
Meta
a) The European Union has imposed a nearly 800 million euros fine on Meta, accusing the tech giant of “abusive practices” by automatically linking its Facebook Marketplace service with Facebook, giving it an unfair competitive edge in the online classified ads sector.
b) The “Jedi Blue” agreement, established in 2018 between Google and Meta (formerly Facebook), aimed to enhance collaboration in online advertising. However, it attracted significant antitrust scrutiny across multiple jurisdictions. The European Commission initiated an antitrust investigation into the agreement in March 2022. By December 2022, the Commission closed its probe, citing insufficient evidence to confirm initial concerns.
c) As of December 2024, the specific antitrust cases directly related to the “Jedi Blue” agreement have been closed in both the EU and the UK. However, broader investigations into Google’s practices in the ad tech industry persist.
Microsoft
a) In June 2024, the European Commission charged Microsoft with antitrust violations, alleging that the company unlawfully bundled its Teams communication app with Office 365 and Microsoft 365 suites. This practice, according to the Commission, provided Teams with an unfair market advantage and limited interoperability with competing messaging applications. In response, Microsoft announced in August 2023 that it would unbundle Teams from its Office suites in the European Economic Area and Switzerland, aiming to address the Commission’s concerns. However, the Commission deemed these measures insufficient, emphasizing the need for further action to restore competition.
b) Google filed an EU antitrust complaint against Microsoft, accusing the company of using unfair licensing contracts in its Azure cloud computing business.
Apple
a) In March 2024, the European Commission fined Apple €1.84 billion for preventing music streaming services like Spotify from informing users about alternative payment options outside the App Store, thereby favouring its own services.
b) In June 2024, Apple faced charges under the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) for allegedly restricting app developers from directing users to external payment methods, potentially leading to fines up to 20% of its global annual revenue if found in violation.
c) By July 2024, Apple settled a separate EU antitrust probe concerning its mobile payment system, Apple Pay, by agreeing to grant competitors access to its contactless payment technology, thus avoiding a potential fine of up to 10% of its annual revenue.
United Kingdom
a) In September 2024, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) provisionally found that Google may be abusing its dominant position in the digital advertising market. The CMA’s investigation suggests that Google is favouring its own ad exchange, potentially disadvantaging competitors and harming UK publishers and advertisers. If these findings are confirmed, Google could face penalties of up to 10% of its global revenue.
b) Separately, Google is facing an $8.8 billion class action lawsuit in the UK, alleging that the company abuses its dominance in the search market. The lawsuit claims that Google’s practices, such as requiring Android phone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Chrome, and paying Apple to be the default search engine on Safari, are anticompetitive. The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has allowed this case to proceed, adding to Google’s legal challenges in Europe and the United States.
Microsoft
a) In December 2024, Microsoft was sued in the UK over allegations that it charges higher license fees for Windows Server software to businesses using rival cloud services like Amazon, Google, and Alibaba. The lawsuit, filed by competition lawyer Maria Luisa Stasi at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, claims that Microsoft’s pricing strategy is designed to push customers toward its own cloud service, Azure, thereby restricting competition. The case seeks over £1 billion in compensation for British businesses.
b) Concurrently, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is investigating Microsoft’s licensing practices as part of a broader inquiry into the cloud computing market. The CMA’s investigation examines concerns about market dominance and potential anti-competitive behaviour in the cloud sector.
c) In July 2024, the CMA initiated a “phase 1” merger inquiry into Microsoft’s hiring of key staff from Inflection AI, a U.S.-based AI start-up. This move, along with a $650 million payment to license Inflection’s technology, raised concerns about potential anti-competitive effects in the AI market.
d) However, by September 2024, the CMA concluded that while Microsoft’s actions could be considered a “relevant merger situation,” they did not pose a significant threat to competition. Consequently, the CMA decided not to pursue a full investigation into the matter.
Apple
a) In July 2023, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Apple on behalf of over 1,500 UK-based developers. The suit alleges that Apple abuses its dominant position by charging a 15% to 30% fee on in-app sales through its App Store, which is considered excessive and unfair. The plaintiffs argue that these fees harm both developers and consumers by stifling innovation and increasing costs. In April 2024, a UK court ruled that this lawsuit could proceed, rejecting Apple’s attempt to have it dismissed.
b) In November 2024, the UK consumer group ‘Which?’ initiated a lawsuit against Apple, alleging that the company breached UK competition law by “forcing” customers to use its iCloud service. The lawsuit claims that Apple gave preferential treatment to iCloud, making it difficult for users to use alternative cloud storage providers. Which? is seeking damages for approximately 40 million UK users who have used iCloud since October 2015, estimating potential compensation to total nearly £3 billion. Apple has denied these allegations, asserting that its iCloud practices are not anti-competitive and that users have the option to use various third-party storage alternatives.
Australia
a) In July 2024, the ACCC investigated agreements between Google and Australian telecommunications companies Telstra and Optus. These agreements, in place since at least 2017, made Google’s search service the default on Android devices, potentially hindering rival search engines’ ability to be pre-installed. Both Telstra and Optus agreed not to renew or enter into similar agreements with Google after June 30, 2024. The ACCC continues to investigate Google’s broader practices and their impact on competition.
Meta
a) The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has scrutinized Meta’s market conduct. In 2022, the ACCC filed a lawsuit alleging that Meta failed to prevent the publication of cryptocurrency scam advertisements featuring prominent Australians, including mining billionaire Andrew Forrest. The case is ongoing, with the ACCC seeking remedies for consumer protection violation.
b) In July 2024, the ACCC announced plans to introduce legislation requiring internet companies to proactively prevent hosting scams or face substantial fines. This initiative aims to hold platforms like Meta accountable for harmful content and scams proliferating on their services.
Apple
a) Apple is currently involved in significant legal challenges concerning its business practices in Australia. The most prominent case is Epic Games v. Apple, which has been ongoing since 2020. Epic Games, the developer of Fortnite, alleges that Apple maintains an illegal monopoly over the iOS App Store, compelling developers to use its payment system and imposing high commission fees. This lawsuit is part of a broader global effort by Epic Games to challenge Apple’s App Store policies.
b) In November 2022, the ACCC formally recommended that the government establish a mandatory code of conduct to curb anti-competitive practices by tech giants, including Apple and Google. The proposed changes, if implemented, could lead to outcomes similar of those Epic Games is currently pursuing in its lawsuit.
c) In December 2023, the government acknowledged the ACCC’s strong case and announced that Treasury would begin consultations in 2024 to design the new code.
d) A decision in the Federal Court case is anticipated in 2025.
Australia has introduced a new legislative proposal that could impose substantial fines of up to S$50 million on major tech companies found engaging in anti-competitive practices. This move is part of the ongoing efforts by the center-left Labor government to limit the power of Big Tech.
The proposal comes shortly after the government’s approval of a law banning social media access for children under 16.
Canada
a) On November 28, 2024, Canada’s Competition Bureau filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging anti-competitive conduct in the online advertising sector. The Bureau contends that Google has unlawfully tied its advertising technology tools together, thereby maintaining and entrenching its dominant market position. Specifically, the Bureau seeks an order requiring Google to divest two of its ad tech tools: the publisher ad server, DoubleClick for Publishers, and the ad exchange, AdX.
b) The Bureau’s investigation found that Google holds significant market shares in various ad tech sectors, including 90% in publisher ad servers, 70% in advertiser networks, 60% in demand-side platforms, and 50% in ad exchanges.
c) In response, Google maintains that the online advertising market is highly competitive and that its tools help websites and apps fund their content while enabling businesses to effectively reach new customers.
Apple
a) In January 2024, a Canadian class-action lawsuit resulted in Apple agreeing to pay Canadian iPhone users between $11.1 million and a maximum of $14.4 million CAD to iPhone users who owned an iPhone 6, 6s, SE (1st gen), or 7 and upgraded to iOS 10.2.1 between December 21, 2017, and December 21, 2018.
b) The lawsuit alleged that Apple used software updates to intentionally slow down these older iPhone models, prompting users to purchase newer devices.
c) Apple denied any wrongdoing, stating that the updates were intended to prevent unexpected shutdowns due to aging batteries.
Meta
a) In August 2023, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB), and News Media Canada filed a complaint with the Competition Bureau. The complaint alleged that Meta was abusing its dominant position by blocking news content and not engaging in good faith negotiations with news businesses, thereby impairing their ability to compete effectively in the news publishing and online advertising markets.
Microsoft
a) The most notable antitrust-related legal action involving Microsoft in Canada was a nationwide class action lawsuit filed in 2005. This lawsuit alleged that Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive behaviour, leading to inflated prices for certain software products.
b) In 2018, Microsoft reached a settlement agreement, agreeing to pay up to $517 million to resolve the claims.
c) The settlement was approved by courts in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, and the funds were distributed to eligible class members and Canadian schools.
These cases reflect a global effort to address the market power of major tech firms, aiming to foster fair competition and protect consumer interests across various regions.