European Commission (EC): The EC recorded the highest volume of fines for abuse of dominance of any antitrust authority. However, this was driven by one decision: a USD3.3 billion fine on Google for alleged self-preferencing in the adtech market—further details are set out below. The EC also publicly consulted on draft guidelines on exclusionary abuses in 2024, which are set for adoption in Q1/Q2 2026.
EU member states: EU member states were also active enforcers of abuse of dominance violations. The Italian antitrust authority (AGCM), for example, fined Ryanair USD289.1 million for “an elaborate strategy” that hindered travel agencies’ ability to purchase Ryanair flights on its website when combined with flights operated by other carriers and/or additional tourism and insurance services.
UK: For the third year running, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) did not impose a fine for abuse of dominance. During 2025, we saw a shift in focus towards enforcement of Big Tech under the UK’s new digital markets regime (see our discussion below) and a move to wrap cases up with commitments (see Beyond fines, soft enforcement rises).
U.S.: In the U.S., while no fines were imposed, the U.S. antitrust agencies, together with state attorneys general, were involved in significant ongoing cases before the courts, especially in the technology sector. In April 2025, Google was found liable for abusing its monopoly power in the adtech market, a case with a similar theory of harm to the EC decision mentioned above. The outcome of the U.S. remedies trial is expected in 2026. In November 2025, a U.S. federal judge found that Meta did not have monopoly power in the market for social networking services in a monopolization lawsuit brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC has appealed.
Americas (excl. U.S.): The largest fine in the Americas was a USD1.2m fine imposed by the Chilean antitrust authority on WOM, a mobile telephony and broadband company. WOM was found liable for charging excessive prices that lacked objective justification in the market for the termination of Application-to-Person SMS messaging on its own network.
APAC: Abuse of dominance fine volumes within APAC declined for the fourth consecutive year. However, there was a notable case in South Korea: a court fined Naver USD140,000 (the maximum criminal penalty for abusing market dominance) for using exclusionary contract terms to block a rival in the online real estate information sector from accessing essential property listing data.
Antitrust authorities scrutinize exploitative and exclusionary abuse of dominance in tech sector
Linsey McCallum, deputy director-general for antitrust at the EC, said in a December 2025 conference that the authority would address the challenges of modern digital markets by probing both exclusionary and exploitative abuses of dominance. She described a “pivot” from focusing purely on behavior that excludes competitors from the market, such as self-preferencing, bundling, exclusive dealing, and refusal to supply, to also enforcing against exploitative conduct, where businesses dealing with dominant firms and ultimately consumers are harmed by the imposition of unfair terms.
Consistent with this statement, notable investigations into exploitative conduct in the tech sector were opened by EU authorities in 2025:
- An EC investigation into whether Google is imposing “unfair terms and conditions” on publishers and content creators, or granting itself privileged access to such content, including by using their content to provide generative AI-powered services and train its generative AI models without appropriate compensation.
- EC, Italian, and Brazilian investigations into whether Meta’s new policy prohibiting third-party AI providers from using a tool allowing businesses to communicate with customers via WhatsApp may be an abuse of dominance. In Italy, an interim order requiring Meta to suspend the introduction of the new policy in the country came into force in January 2026 and, in a rare move, the EC announced that it intends to impose similar interim measures. However, in Brazil in January 2026, Meta won an appeal to suspend a temporary injunction on its new contractual terms. A preventative measure requiring Meta to suspend its new terms has been upheld in Brazil.
Notwithstanding the above, the largest antitrust fine of the year (USD3.3 billion) was imposed on Google for alleged exclusionary conduct: favoring its own online display adtech services. It is the second largest individual antitrust fine ever imposed by the EC.
Even more notably, in addition to the fine, the EC ordered Google to bring the alleged self-preferencing practices to an end and to address alleged inherent conflicts of interest along the adtech supply chain. Google has appealed the decision.
The EC also wrapped up another exclusionary conduct case in 2025, accepting commitments offered by Microsoft to address concerns that it had abusively tied its cloud‑based communication and collaboration product Teams to its popular productivity applications—see Beyond fines, soft enforcement rises for more information on this and other abuse of dominance commitment decisions.
It will be interesting to see whether the EC’s announced shift towards looking at exploitative conduct in the tech sector translates into increased enforcement against this conduct, both in Europe and elsewhere.
When considering potential exploitative abuses, regulators will need to balance the desire for enforcement against concerns that doing so could constitute an “overreach” of the antitrust rules, for example, where the imposition of unfair terms and conditions could be considered more appropriate for enforcement under consumer protection legislation. Courts will also need to make this assessment— see Private damages activity continues to escalate across key jurisdictions which describes how private enforcement increasingly focuses on harms linked to digital market power.
Digital markets and antitrust regulation: different approaches, same goal?
The cases described above illustrate how antitrust authorities will continue to utilize antitrust legislation to scrutinize Big Tech in parallel with enforcement under ex ante digital markets regimes. However, the EC and the UK CMA appear to be adopting slightly different approaches to this parallel enforcement. The EC’s deputy director-general for antitrust, Linsey McCallum, has emphasized the utility of antitrust probes to capture conduct not covered by specific sector regulation, including novel conduct in new markets where a comprehensive assessment is required. By contrast, in 2024, we saw the CMA close antitrust investigations in favor of using potentially faster tools under its new digital regulation powers, with no abuse of dominance decisions issued in 2025.
In addition, many initiatives to introduce new ex ante regimes around the globe have slowed in response to geopolitical tensions.
Despite the new UK digital markets regime coming into force at the beginning of 2025, the CMA has so far only made three “strategic market status” designations: Google in general search and search advertising services, and Apple and Google in mobile platforms. It has consulted on conduct requirements in relation to search and a package of commitments relating to app store processes. In its draft annual plan 2026 to 2027, the CMA stated that it wishes to foster a reputation for a “purposeful and pragmatic” approach in digital markets.
However, the EC has continued to take significant enforcement action under the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA) in 2025. It fined Apple USD565.2m for allegedly breaching its anti-steering obligation and Meta USD226.1m for allegedly failing to give consumers the choice of a service that uses less of their personal data but is otherwise equivalent to the “personalised ads” service—both firms are appealing.
The EC also opened specification proceedings to clarify measures required for effective compliance.
In addition, the German antitrust authority has continued to enforce its tech-specific antitrust provisions including Section 19a GWB, the German functional equivalent of the DMA. In February 2026, it prohibited Amazon from applying so-called price control mechanisms on the German Amazon Marketplace and, for the first time, ordered the disgorgement of USD66.7m in economic benefits.
Against a background of ongoing U.S. criticism of the EU’s enforcement actions (against U.S. Big Tech companies), EC competition commissioner Teresa Ribera has noted that the EU has a constitutional obligation to ensure Big Tech gatekeepers do not distort competition in the EU. Meanwhile, some contributors to a consultation on the DMA have called for it to be strengthened and expanded, in particular in relation to AI and cloud services.
