The European Commission on Thursday fined Google €890 million for anti-competitive practices in breach of the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA).

The world’s leading search engine routinely displays results that primarily benefit its own enterprise in prime positions, while links belonging to rival companies appear further down the page.

In some instances, Google presents an in-house “AI-powered overview” designed to inform the user directly.

In other searches, the engine responds first with its proprietary mapping service, Google Maps, or with “sponsored products”—advertisements paid for by businesses seeking top-tier placement in search results.

While this structure serves Google’s commercial interests, it can disadvantage consumers and competing firms. Alternative mapping services or shopping portals, for example, are denied privileged access to Google’s vast user base.

The EU principally accuses Google of favoring its own digital offerings, such as Google Shopping, within Google Search.

“Similar third-party services do not enjoy the same visibility,” the Commission stated, calling for greater fairness in search indexing.

EU Competition Commissioner Teresa Ribera emphasized: “The best products should stand out because they are superior, not because they belong to the company operating the search engine.”

Brussels further accuses the tech giant of restricting developers from offering applications—some of which are less expensive—on alternative app stores outside of Google Play.

Through the imposition of this fine, the Commission is demanding that Google cease both infractions of the DMA.

Google sharply criticized the financial penalty on Thursday. Kent Walker, Google’s President of Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer, argued that “this enforcement of the DMA once again undermines services that people rely on every day.”

The ruling, according to the company, will force it to strip away search features that European users value, such as integrated hotel price comparisons.

“This is not fair competition; it is a degradation of product quality driven by a small group of self-interested complainants,” Walker asserted.

Google contended that when users search for flights, for instance, they expect to enter specific dates and instantly review real-time pricing and availability.

The company plans to examine the decision thoroughly and stated that it retains the option to appeal.

In principle, Google holds the legal right to challenge the fine in court. Theoretically, the litigation could reach the Court of Justice of the European Union following a prolonged legal procedure.

The “gatekeeper problem”—arising when dominant platforms such as Google or Apple serve as primary entry points to the internet—has long driven concern among policymakers and consumer advocates.

“When gatekeepers prioritize their own services, it causes direct harm to rivals and consumers alike,” said Miika Blinn of the Federation of German Consumer Organisations.

The consumer advocate also drew attention to the extensive volume of personal data users are compelled to surrender to dominant digital gatekeepers.

Enacted in 2023, the DMA aims to prevent systemic tech gatekeepers from favoring their own proprietary products over comparable third-party services.

The legislation is also designed to guarantee that consumers can freely select their preferred web browsers and search engines, whether they operate an Apple device or a smartphone running Google’s Android operating system.

Through these measures, the EU seeks to prevent tech conglomerates from leveraging market dominance in one segment to expand control over adjacent sectors, continuously compounding their market power.

The regulatory framework has drawn fierce criticism from US corporations and President Donald Trump.

Apple, for instance, mounted a legal challenge contesting its designation as a “gatekeeper,” but recently lost the case before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, urged US President Trump to take international action against governments attempting to impose regulatory restrictions on technology firms.

Following an EU fine imposed on Elon Musk’s social media platform X, the US administration went so far as to threaten retaliatory measures.

Trump warned Brussels that he would view financial penalties levied against US tech companies as tariffs and would respond with retaliatory tariffs.

Reports indicate that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen repeatedly delayed the DMA fine against Google to avoid alienating the US, a key and challenging trade partner.

Consequently, many industry observers view the €890 million penalty against Google as a critical litmus test of whether the EU can enforce its digital regulations despite intense foreign resistance.

The Google proceeding also illustrates the lengthy timeline of EU enforcement actions. Two years and approximately four months elapsed between the formal initiation of the case and the announcement of the fine.

For this reason, civil society groups including LobbyControl and Corporate Europe Observatory had voiced complaints prior to the announcement, alleging that the EU had “significantly delayed” enforcement of the DMA.

In 2017, under a separate antitrust proceeding, the European Commission fined Google and its parent company Alphabet €2.4 billion for favoring its Google Shopping service over rival aggregators such as Idealo.

That legal dispute subsequently advanced to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which upheld the €2.4 billion penalty in late 2024.

Michael Kretschmer, a key ally of Friedrich Merz, has ignited a fierce political debate after suggesting that conservatives should cooperate with Alternative for Germany (AfD).

Kretschmer, the premier of Saxony and a prominent member of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), is directly challenging Merz’s insistence on maintaining a political “firewall” (Brandmauer) against the surging AfD ahead of critical September elections that could see the party capture a state premiership for the first time.

“Those who still talk about firewalls have not recognized the signs of the times. We must talk to everyone who wants to talk,” Kretschmer, who heads a minority government in Saxony, said in an interview with the newspaper Handelsblatt earlier this week.

According to Politico, Kretschmer’s remarks have inflamed the very tensions Merz has spent months working to contain.

Merz refuses to cooperate with the far right, citing Germany’s Nazi past. However, political realities in eastern Germany are exerting mounting pressure on him to reconsider this stance.

Polls indicate that the AfD has a viable chance of securing an absolute majority in Saxony-Anhalt on Sept. 6, while also being positioned for strong performances in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Berlin later that month.

At the national level, Politico’s Poll of Polls places the AfD as the most popular party with 28% support, compared to 22% for the Christian Democrats.

For now, Merz remains firm in his position, maintaining that Germany bears a “special historical responsibility” and therefore cannot follow the path of other EU member states where the far right collaborates with the centrist mainstream.

Speaking to reporters at a news conference, the Chancellor stated:

“An extreme-right party entering government in Germany carries an entirely different meaning than if it were to happen in another country. This is tied to our history, which is why it serves as neither a benchmark, an example, nor a lesson for me to draw from. It is, quite simply, a different situation. I will do everything in my power to prevent this in Germany.”

Instead, Merz argued that the government’s objective must be to foster an environment in which the far right can be defeated.

“Between now and Sept. 6, we will work to facilitate and ensure stable political conditions in both Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,” Merz said.

Yet the reality on the ground in the campaign battlegrounds reveals that the AfD leads all rival parties by a wide margin in the eastern states of Saxony-Anhalt (41%) and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (36%).

The territory of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) has long functioned as a stronghold for the right. It is also where the AfD’s party apparatus and policy positions are at their most radical.

Regional party branches in four of the five eastern German states are officially classified as “extremist right-wing” organizations by domestic intelligence agencies.

In Saxony-Anhalt, polling places the party within range of winning an absolute parliamentary majority.

Such an outcome would enable the party to assume state-level power for the first time since its founding in 2013.

Even if the AfD falls short of an absolute majority in Saxony-Anhalt, Merz’s conservatives face a difficult political dynamic in September: to keep the far right from power, they would be forced to cooperate with the Left Party (Die Linke).

The Left Party is also exceptionally strong in the east, and conservatives continue to maintain a “firewall” against it as well, anchored in a formal 2018 party convention resolution.

Addressing potential cooperation with the Left Party last week, Merz said: “We have clear party congress resolutions on this matter, and I have no reason to doubt that we will abide by them.”

However, regional politicians within his own party are increasingly questioning whether such pledges can be sustained given the strength of parties at both ends of the political spectrum.

Kretschmer’s comments are widely viewed as an attempt to initiate a debate on how to govern after the September elections without abandoning campaign pledges entirely or further damaging the CDU’s credibility.

This initiative has met resistance from party leadership in Berlin.

Steffen Bilger, a deputy leader of the CDU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, told Deutschlandfunk on Thursday:

“We are currently in the middle of a fierce political struggle in three states, specifically with or against the AfD. Rather than opening up discussions of this nature right now, that is where our focus should remain.”

Meanwhile, politicians from the Social Democratic Party (SPD) have demanded clarity from their federal coalition partners.

The SPD’s lead candidate for the Berlin election urged the CDU to “state clearly” whether it still rules out regional cooperation with the AfD, while simultaneously calling on the party to open itself to the far left.

Steffen Krach, the SPD head of the Hanover region, said: “The CDU must finally acknowledge that it can cooperate with the Left Party, because it is already doing so,” pointing to the minority governments the party formed in Saxony and Thuringia.

“Anyone who demonizes the Left Party today and equates it with the AfD is deceiving the electorate,” the SPD politician added.

For its part, the AfD has adopted a composed stance amid the ongoing controversy, declaring through a spokesperson to German news outlets that the party remains open to talks with anyone willing to engage.

However, Torben Braga, an AfD lawmaker from the eastern state of Thuringia, argued that given the party’s current strength, supporting a minority government in Saxony-Anhalt after the September elections would not serve its strategic interests.

“I do not understand why a party like the AfD, which is polling near an absolute majority, should settle for enabling a minority government to stay in power by providing a majority without participating in executive decisions,” Braga said. “That would not be in the interest of our voters.”

The Trump administration is continuing to press the German government to raise pharmaceutical prices in Germany.

According to German Foreign Policy, Washington argues that the pharmaceutical industry’s research and development investments are financed primarily through the US market.

The White House contends that other countries continue to benefit from medical innovation despite contributing little to its cost.

President Donald Trump has accused Germany and other countries of “global freeloading.” On June 18, the United States launched a Section 301 investigation against Germany, citing the country’s “persistent underpayment for innovative medicines” in an effort to improve profit conditions for the pharmaceutical industry operating there.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz rejected the demand, although the Economy Ministry said it remains open to negotiations.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Merck have already made concessions by offering selected medicines at lower prices through the new TrumpRX platform.

At the same time, together with companies including Bayer, they are pressing for higher drug prices across EU countries, warning that they could otherwise delay or withhold the launch of new medicines in Europe in order to prevent international price comparisons.

Trump accuses Germany and the EU of “freeloading”

The United States has the highest pharmaceutical prices in the world, followed by Switzerland, Germany and Canada.

The Trump administration says it intends to change that. Claiming to have identified “global freeloading,” the White House blames what it describes as “socialist healthcare systems” in Germany and across the European Union.

In May 2025, Trump signed an executive order stating that the United States would henceforth use the lowest price charged for a medicine in any industrialized country as the benchmark for its domestic pharmaceutical market.

The order states that the objective of US trade policy is “to support manufacturers in raising prices abroad while using the resulting additional revenue to reduce prices directly for American patients and taxpayers.”

The White House embraces pharmaceutical industry arguments

The previous administration frequently clashed with the pharmaceutical industry. After reducing the prices of 10 widely used medicines in 2024, then-President Joe Biden declared, “We beat Big Pharma.”

The issue has taken a different direction under the Trump administration. In contrast to Democrats, Republicans have broadly accepted high drug prices as justified.

The administration has embraced the pharmaceutical industry’s argument that elevated prices are necessary to finance research spending.

The report argues that this claim conflicts with the fact that companies such as AstraZeneca and Bayer have been reducing their own laboratory operations while increasingly acquiring promising biotechnology startups.

It also argues that the administration overlooks the industry’s practice of grouping substantial marketing expenditures under the category of “development.”

Confrontation with Germany, compromise with Britain

In line with Trump’s May 2025 executive order, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer spent months attempting to persuade the German government to reallocate healthcare resources in favor of the pharmaceutical industry.

Those negotiations failed. As a result, in mid-June Greer initiated Section 301 proceedings against Germany over what he described as “persistent underpayment for innovative medicines.”

Greer also openly criticized Germany’s proposed Health Insurance Contribution Stability Act, saying he was “particularly concerned by reports that Germany will rapidly enact legislation that would further reduce spending on innovative medicines.”

The United States has already reached an agreement with the United Kingdom. To avoid the threat of higher tariffs on British pharmaceutical exports, London agreed, among other measures, to pay higher prices for newly launched medicines.

According to an analysis published in the British Medical Journal, the agreement will cost the National Health Service (NHS) approximately 51.5 billion euros by 2036.

The study’s authors argue that the required reallocation of resources will create major gaps in healthcare provision and could result in as many as 229,000 additional deaths.

Berlin stands firm: “Drug pricing is our domestic affair”

The German government has firmly rejected Washington’s claims as unfounded.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Health Minister Nina Warken pointed to the EU-US trade agreement, which includes a 15% tariff on pharmaceutical imports.

Merz described pharmaceutical price regulation in Germany as “entirely a domestic matter,” while Warken rejected any concessions, saying there was “very little room for maneuver.”

Only the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs indicated a willingness to negotiate. A ministry spokesperson said Berlin would seek dialogue with the United States on the issue.

On Tuesday, representatives from the Health Ministry and the Federal Chancellery met with European Commission Director-General for Trade Ditte Juul Jørgensen to discuss a common strategy.

German pharmaceutical companies yield to Trump

In July 2025, Trump sent letters to 17 pharmaceutical companies demanding that they reduce US prescription drug prices to the lowest level charged in any other developed country.

Two German drugmakers, Boehringer Ingelheim and Merck, received the letters, which called on them to apply “most-favored nation” pricing in the United States.

Both companies agreed.

Boehringer Ingelheim said, “We will continue to work constructively with governments, regulators and patient organizations to ensure patients have access to affordable medicines while making sure life-saving medical innovation remains possible.”

The company now offers three medicines at substantially discounted prices through the TrumpRX platform.

Merck also lists three medicines on the platform and has agreed to expand domestic production of fertility treatments in the future.

“Through our collaboration with President Trump and his administration, more families in the United States will now have access to innovative fertility treatments and, we hope, realize their dream of having children,” Merck Chief Executive Danny Bar-Zohar said.

Bayer backed Trump’s election campaign

Other pharmaceutical manufacturers, including Bayer, are also seeking a “proactive” agreement with the administration out of concern that they could otherwise face stricter cost-cutting measures.

The Leverkusen-based company has not criticized Trump’s policies. It donated $122,000 to his election campaign, sponsored his inauguration and now supports his criticism of Berlin and Brussels.

Chief Executive Bill Anderson said in an interview:

“Yes, I understand the US government’s frustration with European pharmaceutical policy. Every European government wants to create jobs in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. But when it comes to pricing innovative medicines, they are willing to pay only a fraction of what the United States pays. That is unacceptable.”

Stefan Oelrich, a member of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Executive Committee, also argued that “prices for new products in Europe must increase.”

Oelrich said he personally conveyed that position to EU Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi during the commissioner’s visit to Bayer’s Berlin office in June.

According to the EU Transparency Register, Bayer lobbyists and members of Várhelyi’s cabinet have held numerous meetings, suggesting the issue has remained high on the agenda.

The Leverkusen-based company also joined other pharmaceutical manufacturers in sending a letter on the matter to the European Commission.

Major pharmaceutical companies pressure the EU

Seeking additional leverage, major drugmakers argue that fewer medicines are being submitted for approval in EU countries because manufacturers want to avoid creating price benchmarks that could be used by the US government.

“These are not empty threats; this is already happening. Europe is on a path where, in the end, almost no new medicines will be approved,” said Matthias Berninger, Bayer’s chief public affairs officer.

The German Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (VFA), founded by Bayer, previously used the same argument in its campaign against the Health Insurance Stability Act.

In a full-page newspaper advertisement, the lobbying group urged lawmakers not to undermine pharmaceutical industry profits in order to safeguard medicine supplies.

“Members of the Bundestag, you will decide whether tomorrow’s medicines reach Germany,” the advertisement stated.

The report argues, however, that the legislation places virtually no burden on the pharmaceutical industry while preserving favorable business conditions for the sector.

“Spending on pharmaceuticals is expected to continue increasing,” the advertisement added.

Since the US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration’s tariff increases were unlawful, the administration has based much of its aggressive trade strategy on Section 301 proceedings such as the case against Germany.

The legal basis for those proceedings is a provision of the US Trade Act of 1974. In the case against Germany, Berlin has until Aug. 10 to submit its response, while a public hearing is scheduled for Sept. 22.