Digital Markets Act Enforcement: What the Google Fine Means for Businesses on EU Platforms

The European Commission has reportedly advanced a Digital Markets Act enforcement action against Google that, according to media reports, could result in the largest DMA fine to date, although no final decision or amount has yet been published. The allegation centres on self-preferencing in Google Search, a practice the DMA explicitly prohibits. For platform-dependent businesses across Poland and the wider EU, the case reshapes the competitive landscape and creates both new rights and new compliance responsibilities. This article explains the legal framework, breaks down the penalty mechanics, and provides practical checklists for businesses that rely on gatekeeper services.

Quick summary: what happened and why it matters

The European Commission has reportedly advanced a Digital Markets Act enforcement action against Google that, according to media reports, could result in the largest DMA fine to date. The allegation is that Google breached its gatekeeper obligations by systematically favouring its own vertical-search services over those of competitors in its general search results. This practice, known as self-preferencing, is one of the core prohibitions the DMA imposes on designated gatekeepers. The case follows DMA enforcement against Apple and Meta, where media reports have indicated potential fines in the hundreds of millions of euros. The final figures and legal reasoning must be taken from the Commission’s published decisions, once available.

For businesses in Poland and across the EU that depend on Google Search, Google Shopping, Google Maps, or other core platform services for customer acquisition, the implications are immediate. A finding of non-compliance by a gatekeeper may trigger changes to ranking algorithms, data-access policies, and commercial terms. Platform-dependent businesses should treat this moment as a compliance trigger: map your dependencies, understand the rights the DMA gives you, and prepare to act on changes that gatekeeper platforms will be forced to implement.

What the Digital Markets Act requires of designated gatekeepers

Who counts as a gatekeeper, criteria and designation process

The DMA applies to a narrow class of very large platforms that the European Commission formally designates as “gatekeepers.” Under the regulation, a company qualifies if it provides a core platform service (such as search engines, operating systems, app stores, or online advertising), meets specific quantitative thresholds related to annual turnover within the European Economic Area and monthly active end users, and occupies an entrenched, durable position in the market. Gatekeeper status is based on a combination of quantitative thresholds (EU turnover and user numbers) and a qualitative assessment of an entrenched and durable position under Article 3 DMA. The Commission has designated Alphabet (Google), Apple, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, and ByteDance as gatekeepers, covering services from search and social networking to messaging and app distribution.

Core gatekeeper obligations under the Digital Markets Act

Once designated, gatekeepers must comply with a detailed catalogue of obligations set out in Articles 5, 6, and 7 of the DMA. These obligations are designed to ensure contestability and fairness in digital markets. The key categories are:

• No self-preferencing. Gatekeepers must not treat their own products or services more favourably than those of third parties in ranking, display, or indexing. This is the obligation at the centre of the Google enforcement action.
• Interoperability and API access. Gatekeepers must provide effective technical interoperability for third-party services, including, in specified cases, number-independent interpersonal communications services. They must also allow business users to access the platform through fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory application programming interfaces.
• Data access and portability. Business users and end users must be able to access, port, and use certain data generated through their activity on the platform, subject to data protection, security, and confidentiality constraints. Gatekeepers cannot restrict business users from accessing performance data, advertising data, or search-ranking data that is necessary to compete effectively.
• Restrictions on certain tying and bundling practices that unfairly privilege the gatekeeper’s own services or foreclose rivals, as set out in the DMA’s specific obligations (for example around defaults and self‑preferencing).

Obligation
What it means in practice
Example

No self-preferencing
Platforms must not rank their own services above rivals by default
Google Search displaying Google Shopping results more prominently than competing comparison-shopping services

Interoperability & APIs
Gatekeepers must provide technical means for third-party interoperability
Messaging interoperability enabling third-party apps to exchange messages with a gatekeeper’s messaging service

Data access & portability
Business users and end users must be able to access, port, and use certain data generated through their activity on the platform, subject to data protection, security, and confidentiality constraints.
App stores providing developers with download, usage, and revenue data through export endpoints

Enforcement and remedies, how the Commission acts

The Commission is the sole enforcer of the DMA at the EU level. It can open proceedings on its own initiative or following complaints. Where it finds non-compliance, it may impose fines, order behavioural or structural remedies, and, in urgent cases, adopt interim measures to prevent serious and irreparable harm to business users or end users. National competition authorities, including Poland’s UOKiK, may support the Commission’s investigations, but formal DMA enforcement decisions rest with Brussels.

Why Google is reportedly facing a record Digital Markets Act enforcement fine

The Commission’s case against Google centres on the allegation that Google has continued to favour its own specialised search services, including shopping, local, and travel results, within its general search results page, in breach of Article 6(5) of the DMA. This is not entirely new territory: the Commission fined Google EUR 2.42 billion in 2017 under traditional EU competition law (Article 102 TFEU) for abusing its dominant position through self-preferencing in comparison shopping. The DMA, however, provides a faster, more prescriptive enforcement pathway because gatekeepers’ obligations are defined ex ante, they do not require a lengthy market-dominance analysis.

Reports indicate that the Commission concluded its market investigation and preliminary assessment, signalling that the fine under preparation could be the highest yet under the DMA. The enforcement timeline has moved quickly relative to traditional antitrust proceedings, reflecting the DMA’s design as a regulatory tool rather than a purely competition-law instrument. Legal commentators expect the formal decision in the coming months, after which Google would have the right to appeal to the General Court of the European Union.

Comparison with prior DMA fines and traditional antitrust remedies

To place the Google case in context, the Commission issued DMA enforcement actions against Apple and Meta, and media reports have suggested potential fines in the hundreds of millions of euros in 2025. The final figures and legal reasoning must be taken from the Commission’s published decisions. Under traditional antitrust enforcement, the Commission had previously imposed fines on Google totalling over EUR 8 billion across three separate cases between 2017 and 2019. The DMA’s penalty framework, with statutory caps of up to 10 per cent of global annual turnover, has the potential to produce significantly larger fines. Early indications suggest the Google DMA fine amount could set a new ceiling for digital-platform enforcement in Europe.

Digital Markets Act penalty structure explained

Understanding the DMA’s penalty framework is essential for any business assessing the seriousness of enforcement actions against gatekeepers, and the knock-on effects those actions create.

These figures are statutory maximums. Actual fines in individual DMA cases depend on the specific conduct and are determined in the Commission’s final decision.

Under the DMA, the Commission may impose fines of up to 10 per cent of the undertaking’s total worldwide annual turnover for non-compliance with gatekeeper obligations. For repeat infringements, the cap rises to 20 per cent of global annual turnover. Periodic penalty payments of up to 5 per cent of average daily worldwide turnover may also be imposed to compel compliance with interim measures or commitments.

Breach type
Maximum fine (% of global annual turnover)
Repeat-offence cap

Non-compliance with core gatekeeper obligations (Articles 5, 6, 7)
Up to 10%
Up to 20%

Failure to comply with the DMA obligation for gatekeepers to inform the Commission about certain concentrations
Up to 1%
Up to 1%

Supplying incorrect or misleading information
Up to 1%
Up to 1%

Beyond fines, the Commission may adopt behavioural or structural remedies. Behavioural remedies could require changes to ranking algorithms, default settings, or data-sharing practices. Structural remedies, available in cases of systematic non-compliance, could theoretically require divestiture of a business unit, although this remains an extreme scenario. For third-party businesses, the more immediate financial risk lies in follow-on damages actions: once the Commission establishes a breach, affected competitors and business users may bring private claims in national courts to recover losses caused by the unlawful conduct.

The clear policy intent is to create strong deterrence, and many observers expect these high maximum fines to have that effect. For a company the size of Alphabet, whose global revenue exceeded USD 300 billion in the most recent fiscal year, a 10 per cent fine would represent a figure in the tens of billions of dollars, far exceeding any competition fine in history. Even a fraction of the theoretical maximum sends a powerful signal to all designated gatekeepers about the cost of non-compliance with the Digital Markets Act.

What DMA enforcement means for businesses that depend on EU platforms

The reported Google enforcement action is not just a matter between the Commission and a technology company. It directly affects the millions of businesses across the EU, including thousands of Polish SMEs, marketplaces, app developers, and advertisers, that rely on gatekeeper platforms for visibility, distribution, and revenue. The DMA was designed to give these businesses concrete rights, and enforcement actions are the mechanism that activates those rights in practice.

The first step for any platform-dependent business is to assess its level of exposure. Consider the following risk matrix:

• High dependency, low control. Businesses that derive the majority of revenue from a single gatekeeper platform and have no direct customer relationship (e.g., sellers who rely entirely on a marketplace’s fulfilment and discovery tools). These businesses face the greatest risk from ranking changes, fee adjustments, or data-access restrictions, but also stand to gain the most from DMA-mandated transparency.
• Moderate dependency, some control. Businesses that use gatekeeper platforms as one of several channels and maintain a direct customer database. Risk is lower, but DMA compliance changes may still affect advertising costs, product visibility, and data flows.
• Low dependency, high control. Businesses with their own distribution channels that use gatekeeper services peripherally. Exposure is limited, but monitoring DMA developments remains advisable to capture new data-access or interoperability opportunities.

Regardless of where your business falls on this spectrum, the following 10-point platform compliance checklist provides a structured starting point for DMA readiness:

SME checklist: priority actions for smaller businesses

For SMEs, resource constraints make prioritisation essential. Focus first on items 1, 2, 3, and 9 from the checklist above. Map your dependencies and request data access immediately, these are low-cost actions that establish a baseline. Building a direct customer channel (even a simple email list) reduces your vulnerability to sudden platform changes. If you identify potential self-preferencing (for example, your products consistently appearing below the gatekeeper’s own offerings despite superior reviews or lower prices), document the instances with screenshots and timestamps. This evidence may support a complaint to the Commission or a follow-on damages claim. Polish SMEs can also contact UOKiK for guidance on escalation pathways.

Enterprise checklist: actions for larger platform-dependent businesses

Enterprises with dedicated legal and compliance teams should implement the full 10-point checklist and go further. Commission a formal DMA compliance audit covering all gatekeeper relationships across jurisdictions. Negotiate bespoke contractual terms, the DMA strengthens your bargaining position by requiring gatekeepers to provide fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory access. Establish internal escalation protocols so that commercial teams can flag potential DMA breaches to legal without delay. Consider joining industry coalitions or trade associations that engage directly with the Commission on DMA enforcement priorities. For businesses operating across multiple EU member states, ensure that your compliance framework accounts for the interaction between DMA obligations and national competition regimes, including in Poland.

Interaction with Polish competition law and regulators

The DMA does not replace national competition law, it complements it. Poland’s national competition authority, the Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK), retains full competence to enforce the Polish Act on Competition and Consumer Protection and Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. The DMA explicitly provides that national authorities may apply national competition rules to gatekeeper conduct, provided those rules do not conflict with the DMA’s specific obligations.

In practice, this means that Polish businesses may have parallel avenues for redress. A gatekeeper practice that violates the DMA’s self-preferencing ban could also constitute an abuse of dominance under Polish or EU competition law. UOKiK has signalled its engagement with digital-market issues and cooperates with the European Commission through the European Competition Network. Polish businesses that believe they are affected by gatekeeper misconduct should consider filing complaints both with the Commission (for DMA enforcement) and with UOKiK (for national competition law enforcement). For businesses seeking to explore competition practice in Poland or find Polish competition lawyers, specialist EU competition law advice is essential to navigate these overlapping regimes.

Cross-border compliance: US retaliation risk and multinational considerations

The DMA’s enforcement actions against US-headquartered technology companies have attracted political attention on both sides of the Atlantic. US officials and lawmakers have publicly criticised EU digital regulation as disproportionately targeting American firms. Some commentators have raised the risk of potential US retaliatory measures, such as trade policy responses or reciprocal regulatory scrutiny, although no formal countermeasures have been announced. For multinational businesses, and for Polish companies with US operations or partnerships, this geopolitical tension creates a distinct compliance challenge.

Legal commentators expect the practical risk to be manageable for most businesses, but it cannot be ignored. Companies operating in both jurisdictions should document the legal basis for all DMA-related actions to demonstrate that compliance decisions are driven by regulatory obligation, not commercial opportunism. Dual-jurisdiction legal counsel is advisable for any business whose platform relationships span the EU and the US. The key recommendation is straightforward: comply with the DMA where it applies, maintain clear records of your compliance rationale, and seek cross-border legal advice before taking actions that could be interpreted as discriminatory by either jurisdiction.

Practical next steps: a 90-day action plan for Digital Markets Act enforcement readiness

The following 90-day triage plan provides a structured approach for businesses seeking to respond to the current wave of DMA enforcement, including the reported Google enforcement action and its downstream effects:

• Days 1–15: Dependency mapping. Identify all gatekeeper services your business relies on. Categorise each by revenue dependency and data criticality. Assign an internal owner for each platform relationship.
• Days 16–30: Data and access audit. Request all data you are entitled to under the DMA from each gatekeeper. Review what data you currently receive, identify gaps, and log any refusals or delays in writing.
• Days 31–60: Contractual review. Engage legal counsel to review all platform contracts for DMA-relevant terms, including most-favoured-nation clauses, exclusivity provisions, and data-use restrictions. Flag any clauses that may be unenforceable under the DMA and prepare renegotiation positions.
• Days 61–75: Technical assessment. Test interoperability tools and API access provided by gatekeeper platforms. Document any barriers to integration, incomplete documentation, or degraded service quality for third-party users compared to the gatekeeper’s own services.
• Days 76–90: Escalation and strategic planning. Brief senior leadership on findings. Decide whether to file a formal complaint with the Commission or UOKiK. Establish ongoing monitoring and assign quarterly review dates for DMA developments.

Conclusion

The Digital Markets Act enforcement action and the reported Google fine represent the most significant test yet of the EU’s new regulatory framework for digital platforms. For businesses in Poland and across the EU, this is not a distant regulatory story, it is a call to action. The rights the DMA confers on platform-dependent businesses are only valuable if exercised. Map your gatekeeper dependencies, assert your data-access rights, review your contracts, and seek specialist competition law advice to ensure your business is positioned to benefit from these changes rather than be disrupted by them.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Businesses should consult qualified legal counsel for advice tailored to their specific circumstances.

Need Legal Advice?
This article was produced by Global Law Experts. For specialist advice on this topic, contact Maciej Lipinski at Kancelaria Adwokatów i Radców Prawnych LIPIŃSKI & WALCZAK, a member of the Global Law Experts network.

Sources