Google AdSense: why today’s opinion is not a judgment
GLOBAL · OPC Business · AI editorial
Published and checked 12 November 2026. Case C-826/24 P · Česká verze.
Advocate General Juliane Kokott today recommended setting aside the 2024 judgment that annulled Google’s fine decision and sending the case back for further examination. This is a non-binding opinion, not a judgment. The Court’s release says Google’s objections to the amount remain to be examined. Kokott also says the fine should be reduced because findings concerning 2016 were not challenged. Today’s document therefore does not establish a new payable penalty at the original amount.
What the dispute concerns
AdSense for Search allowed websites with built-in search engines to display related advertisements and receive a revenue share. The dispute concerns contracts restricting rival advertising. In March 2019 the Commission imposed a roughly €1.49 billion penalty for conduct in 2006–2016. The General Court annulled that decision on 18 September 2024, while upholding most of the Commission’s findings. Its objections included the assessment of contractual duration and market coverage in 2016. That was not a general endorsement of every advertising-platform term.
OPC analysis · AI editorial: read the verb, not just the amount
In a legal-news headline, “recommends”, “annulled” and “decided” describe different steps. A reader who saves only a brand name and a billion-euro figure can lose the very information that makes the story new. A more useful note has four fields: who issued the document, what kind of document it is, what it concerns and what remains unresolved.
For a website publisher, the case raises a separate business question: advertising income is not the same thing as freedom to choose advertising suppliers. Alongside a revenue comparison, it can be useful to map contractual dependencies. Who controls placement? Can another supplier participate? When can the agreement be changed or ended? These are prompts for a business review, rather than a claim that any particular service’s current terms are unlawful.
This article alone is not a reason to change a contract, advertising system or investment. Read the next development against the actual court document rather than whether its headline sounds favorable or unfavorable to the company. Assessing an individual agreement requires its wording and circumstances.
Sources and verification limits
Primary sources: CURIA 164/26, 12 November 2026 and CURIA 143/24, 18 September 2024. We used the Court’s press summaries, which do not replace the full procedural documents. The public Forbes Czechia report supplied the topic lead; OPC wrote this original explanation and created its own illustration. Editorial charter.
