Will the French Ruling against Google for monopolizing online advertising have an impact in Chile?
Cristián Reyes, an antitrust expert and partner at Aninat Abogados, argues that, at first glance, the ruling does not constitute binding precedent for the TDLC, given the different jurisdictions and legal systems involved. However, he notes that “the TDLC has already invoked decisions by foreign competition authorities as comparative reference in other cases, so that possibility should not be ruled out”.
The Paris Commercial Court ordered Google to pay €126 million (approximately US$148 million) to four French media companies — Prisma Media, Le Figaro, Les Échos-Le Parisien and Dailymotion — after concluding that it had engaged in anticompetitive practices in the digital advertising business, according to a report by the news agency EFE. The ruling, issued in late June, specifically concerns the adtech market, where Google operates both as a provider of tools for advertisers and publishers and as the operator of the leading online advertising exchange platform.
Google stated that it disagrees with the court’s decision: “These damages claims are based on flawed interpretations of the adtech sector, which is a highly competitive and rapidly evolving industry,” the company told EFE.
Cases in Chile
Lawyers specializing in the field believe the French ruling could become a comparative-law precedent for the cases currently pending before the Tribunal de Defensa de la Libre Competencia (TDLC).
Over the past two years, several Chilean media outlets have sued Google, accusing it of abusing its dominant position in the search and digital advertising markets.
These actions include the lawsuit filed by Copesa (publisher of La Tercera and other publications); Radio Cooperativa later joined, and this year the television networks grouped under the Asociación Nacional de Televisión (Anatel, National Television Association) joined as well. The most recent lawsuit against Google was filed by cable channel CNN Chile.
Although each case has its own grounds, they all generally argue that Google’s dominance over digital advertising and access to audiences has undermined media outlets’ ability to monetize their content and compete on equal terms.
Not a Precedent, But…
Cristián Reyes, an antitrust expert and partner at Aninat Abogados, argues that, at first glance, the ruling does not constitute binding precedent for the TDLC, given the different jurisdictions and legal systems involved. However, he notes that “the TDLC has already invoked decisions by foreign competition authorities as comparative reference in other cases, so that possibility should not be ruled out”.
Similarities in the Debate
Reyes argues that both disputes accuse Google of favoring its own infrastructure in ad intermediation to the detriment of competition, and of opaque pricing and commission-setting within its advertising chain. The main difference is that, in Chile, the claims directly target the unpaid appropriation of journalistic content, including its use in Google Search and Gemini.
Reyes outlines the differences between the two countries: “In France, the courts awarded direct damages to the media outlets following a civil damages suit based on an infringement established by the competition authority. In Chile, if the TDLC were to find an abuse of dominance, its ruling would only impose a fine payable to the state treasury. To obtain compensation, the media outlets would then need to bring a separate civil damages action before the same TDLC,” he explains.
Read the full article published in El Mercurio.
