London Trial Puts Google Shopping Box Under The Microscope

Key Points

• Closing arguments concluded Wednesday in a London antitrust trial between Google and comparison-shopping firms Kelkoo and Ciao.
• Kelkoo and Ciao are seeking damages before the U.K. Competition Appeal Tribunal over claims Google buried rival comparison sites while reserving prime space for itself.
• Google says its 2017 redesign, prompted by a €2.42 billion European Commission fine, resolved the self-preferencing issue.
• Google lawyer Meredith Pickford argued the redesigned shopping box treats Google Shopping and rivals equally.
• Tribunal chair Peter Roth questioned whether the changes were fundamental enough to end self-preferencing.
• Kelkoo and Ciao argue Google still controls placement, size and display of the shopping box.
• Daniel Jowell, representing Kelkoo and Ciao, said Google should stop self-preferencing rather than blame external rulings.
• The European Commission last week found Google’s post-2017 redesign still breaches the Digital Markets Act.
• Google says the DMA ruling uses a different legal test and shouldn’t affect the damages claim.
• The tribunal has ordered fresh submissions on the DMA decision, with the case returning September 11.

London (Britain Today News) July 29, 2026 – Google says it opened the door. Its rivals say Google still owns the building, a divide laid bare as closing arguments wrapped up in a London antitrust trial Wednesday.

Comparison-shopping companies Kelkoo and Ciao are seeking damages in the U.K. Competition Appeal Tribunal, a specialist court for competition disputes, claiming Google unlawfully buried rival comparison sites in search results while reserving its most valuable shopping space for itself. Google says a 2017 redesign fixed the problem and that the claimants’ proposed alternatives would require far more than competition law demands.

What Sparked This Legal Battle Between Google And Its Rivals?

The origins of the dispute trace back to a landmark European Commission decision. In 2017, the European Commission fined Google 2.42 billion euros, roughly $2.76 billion, after finding that the company illegally steered shoppers toward its own Google Shopping service while demoting rival comparison sites in search results.

Rather than scrap the shopping box entirely, Google chose to redesign it so that rival comparison sites could bid for the same space alongside Google Shopping. That redesign is now at the heart of the London case, with each side offering a fundamentally different account of what it actually achieved.

Why Does Google Say Its 2017 Redesign Settled The Matter?

Google’s legal team insists the redesign was exactly what regulators demanded. Google lawyer Meredith Pickford told the tribunal that the 2017 European Commission decision condemned Google’s preferential treatment of its own comparison-shopping service specifically, not the existence of the shopping box itself.

“What we say is that the remedy box unequivocally cures the self-preferencing of Google’s standalone comparison shopping service, the abuse found in the decision, because it treats Google Shopping and rival comparison shopping services equally on the server,”

Pickford said.

How Does Google Say The New System Actually Works?

Pickford laid out the mechanics of the redesigned box for the tribunal. He explained that rival comparison sites can now upload their own product listings directly, that merchants are free to choose not to use Google Shopping at all, and that separate auctions determine which offers ultimately appear in the box.

According to Pickford, those structural changes transformed the shopping box from Google’s own comparison-shopping service into a neutral marketplace open to all comers on equal terms.

What Question Did The Tribunal Chair Put To Google?

Tribunal chair Peter Roth was not prepared to accept Google’s framing without scrutiny. He pressed the company directly on whether the 2017 changes altered the underlying service itself or merely changed how that same service operates in practice.

“Have these changes been so fundamental that it no longer involves the self-preferencing that existed before?”

Roth asked.

That question effectively distilled the entire case down to a single point of contention: does structural tinkering amount to a genuine cure, or is it a cosmetic fix layered over an unchanged imbalance of power?

What Do Kelkoo And Ciao Say Really Changed?

Kelkoo and Ciao flatly rejected Google’s account of a resolved problem. They argued before the tribunal that Google still decides when the shopping box appears on a results page, where it sits, how large it is, and how products within it are displayed.

Their central claim is that these retained powers leave rival comparison sites functioning as little more than suppliers of merchant advertisements, while Google keeps the direct customer relationship and holds onto the page’s most valuable real estate.

Did Google Simply Put A Price On Access Instead Of Giving Up Control?

That is precisely the accusation levelled by the claimants. Kelkoo and Ciao say Google’s 2017 remedy did not surrender meaningful control at all, but instead simply attached a price tag to access that Google previously granted itself for free.

Their proposed alternative would flip that arrangement entirely, allowing comparison sites, rather than Google, to compete directly to populate and rank the entire shopping box.

Why Does Google Reject The Rivals’ Proposed Alternative?

Pickford argued that the changes demanded by Kelkoo and Ciao would go far beyond what competition law requires of any dominant firm. He said their proposals would effectively force Google to surrender premium search space that the company has built, or abandon the shopping box feature altogether.

“Why would they want to give away their prime assets for free?”

Pickford asked, framing the rivals’ demands as commercially unreasonable rather than legally necessary.
Explore More about London:
London Fire Chief Speaks To Reporters After Explosion Levels South London Home
Muslim Volunteer Abused Online Over Niqab Vows to Continue Community Work

How Has The EU’s Digital Markets Act Complicated Google’s Position?

Just days before closing arguments began, Google picked up a fresh legal problem entirely separate from the London case. Last week, the European Commission determined that Google’s post-2017 shopping redesign still gives its own services preferential treatment under the Digital Markets Act, the EU law aimed at reining in the market power of the largest online platforms.

Google’s position is that this new finding applies a different legal test altogether and therefore cannot settle the damages claim being argued in London. Kelkoo and Ciao insist the ruling cannot simply be brushed aside.

What Did Kelkoo And Ciao’s Lawyer Say About The New EU Ruling?

Daniel Jowell, representing Kelkoo and Ciao, placed responsibility for the fresh finding squarely on Google’s own conduct rather than treating it as an unrelated regulatory development.

“But, of course, we say it is their fault. They should stop self-preferencing,”

Jowell told the tribunal.

What Happens Next In The Case?

The tribunal has ordered both sides to file further submissions addressing how the European Commission’s new Digital Markets Act decision affects the conduct Google is being challenged over, as well as what a lawful counterfactual scenario would look like for the purposes of calculating any damages.

The case is set to return on September 11, when the tribunal will hear arguments specifically on the Digital Markets Act ruling before deciding whether the evidential record in the case needs to be reopened.

What Does This Case Mean For The Future Of Online Shopping Searches?

The outcome carries significant weight well beyond the parties directly involved. A ruling against Google could reshape how dominant search platforms are required to display competing services, while a ruling in Google’s favour would reinforce the view that its 2017 remedy was a sufficient and durable fix.

For comparison-shopping firms like Kelkoo and Ciao, the case represents a chance to secure both financial redress and a legal precedent establishing that price-based access to premium search space does not equate to genuine competitive equality. For Google, it is an opportunity to draw a firm line under years of regulatory pressure stemming from the original 2017 decision.

With the Digital Markets Act ruling now intertwined with the London proceedings, the tribunal’s eventual judgment may end up addressing not just historical conduct, but the adequacy of Google’s current shopping box design as it stands today. The September hearing will be a pivotal moment in determining how much further scrutiny this long-running dispute must undergo before a final resolution is reached.