In September 2024, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) upheld the decision in the final instance. Above all, however, the case shows the structural limits of traditional competition law in the platform era: the proceedings took around 15 years, and the remedy that was imposed created new market distortions.

Google Shopping strategies for more revenue, in your inbox

Every other week: what is changing in Google Shopping, what we see in our customers' accounts, and what to do about it.

Act I: The Foundem case and the slowness of competition law

It all started with the British product search engine Foundem, founded in 2006 by Shivaun and Adam Raff. Shortly after its launch, Google's ranking filters demoted the site drastically, while Google's own service (first Froogle, later Google Product Search) was placed prominently above the search results.

Foundem's home page with a notice about the Foundem, Kelkoo and Ciao v Google trial before the Competition Appeal Tribunal — Foundem's home page (October 2026) refers to the trial before the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London.

Foundem filed an official complaint with the European Commission in 2009.

It took around seven years to reach the first decision and around 15 years until the final confirmation by the ECJ. For Foundem's operating business, the ruling came too late: the company had lost most of its organic search traffic and had already ceased operating in 2016.

In the fast-moving online business, with its strong network effects, a legal dispute lasting several years usually forces smaller competitors out of the market in practice before regulatory decisions take effect.

Act II: The auction model – competitors become resellers

To comply with the European Commission's requirements after the 2017 ruling, Google introduced the Comparison Shopping Services (CSS) model in the autumn of the same year.

Competitors did not, however, get their original place in the organic search results back. Instead, Google opened the visual Shopping box above the organic results to external price comparison services. From then on, they were allowed to bid against Google Shopping in the auction system – backed by a bid advantage of around 20% on the cost per click (CPC), because Google Shopping has since been bidding as a separate unit with its own margin.

This fundamentally changed the market structure: independent platforms that had aimed to generate their own web traffic effectively became resellers of Google's advertising inventory. The regulatory obligation was turned into a new segment within the Google Ads ecosystem.

Act III: Specialised CSS partners open up the advantage to all retailers

The new system fundamentally changed the business of price comparison services and gave rise to a new kind of provider:

Specialised CSS partners: New service providers focused entirely on what the CSS programme gives retailers: the bid advantage in the Shopping auction. Instead of editorial product reviews, they run a lean price comparison platform that meets Google's criteria and pass the 20% advantage on to retailers and agencies for a predictable monthly fee. This lets small and medium-sized online shops use the CSS model too, without running a price comparison site of their own.
Competition for the retailer: In the Shopping box, what matters most to advertising retailers is the auction advantage rather than the portal's brand. This put pressure on the prices of CSS services, to the benefit of retailers: today, CSS access is available at low, fixed costs.
A new role for traditional portals: Established consumer portals such as idealo or Geizhals have since been investing advertising budgets in the Google auction themselves to secure reach for their listed retailers, while their organic SEO traffic has remained permanently lower.

The bottom line: the CSS advantage is no longer reserved for large portals. Every retailer can use it through a specialised CSS partner.

Act IV: Damages claims before the civil courts

The EU antitrust fine of €2.42 billion went entirely into the EU budget; the companies that had been harmed received nothing from it. However, the final finding of abuse opened the way for competitors to bring follow-on damages claims under civil law:

idealo: The portal claimed around €3.3 billion before the Berlin Regional Court. On 13 November 2025, the court awarded idealo around €465 million in damages, including interest, at first instance. Both sides have announced appeals.
Twenga: The French price comparison service won €51.5 million in damages before the commercial court in Paris, having claimed up to €666 million.
Kelkoo: The price comparison service is suing in the United Kingdom for damages of more than one billion pounds.

Act V: The end of Foundem's proceedings – settlement in 2026

In July 2026, the proceedings of the original complainant came to a close.

During the ongoing trial before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in London, Google and Foundem (run by Infederation Ltd) agreed an out-of-court settlement; Foundem withdrew its claim. The terms of the settlement were not published.

Epilogue: The legacy in the Digital Markets Act (DMA)

Today, the Google Shopping case is regarded as a key driver of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). EU lawmakers concluded from the case that lengthy, retrospective abuse proceedings (ex post) take effect too late in digital platform markets. The DMA therefore relies on rules of conduct defined in advance (ex ante) to prohibit practices such as self-preferencing directly.

For the price comparison market, the proceedings did not mark a return to the status quo ante. While surviving companies such as idealo won damages at first instance years later and pioneers such as Foundem ultimately settled, the price comparison segment changed permanently from independent web services into participants in Google's advertising market.

The Google Shopping case: how a record EU ruling reshaped the market for online price comparison