Timeline

The French Competition Authority issues a Decision fining Google €220m.

The European Commission opens an investigation into Google’s conduct in ad tech.

The Competition and Markets Authority opens an investigation into Google’s conduct in ad tech.

Claudio Pollack’s original claim is filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

The US Department of Justice sues Google in relation to its conduct in ad tech.

Charles Arthur’s original claim is filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal holds a case management conference in Claudio Pollack v Alphabet Inc. and others (Case no. 1572/7/7/22) to consider how to appropriately case manage issues relating to carriage and timing. The Tribunal invites Charles Arthur’s legal representatives to be heard on these issues.

Tribunal hands down its judgment in the Pollack case management conference in which it determines that the question of carriage should be heard before the question of certification.

The European Commission sends a Statement of Objections to Google over abusive practices in ad tech.

Claudio Pollack and Charles Arthur apply to the Competition Appeal Tribunal to amalgamate their claims against Google with Ad Tech Collective Action LLP as the new Class Representative.

The CAT orders the consolidation of Claudio Pollack and Charles Arthur’s proceedings and the appointment of Ad Tech Collective Action LLP as the new Class Representative.

At the certification hearing, lasting for 3 days beginning on 8 May 2024, the CAT determines whether Ad Tech Collective Action LLP’s claim should proceed.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal hands down its judgment giving permission for Ad Tech Collective Action LLP to proceed with the claims as the Class Representative.

The UK Competition and Markets Authority issues a statement of objections to Google in respect of alleged abuses of dominance in open-display advertising.

The CAT issues a Collective Proceedings Order, which formally certifies the case as a collective action.

Google sought to appeal the CAT’s certification judgment on three grounds, all of which failed before the CAT and the Court of Appeal.

The US District Court of Eastern Virginia publishes its judgment in relation to the US Department of Justice’s claim against Google, finding that Google engaged in illegal monopolisation of the ad tech market.

The CAT holds its first procedural hearing since certifying the claim, ordering a trial to take place in autumn 2028. In between now and then, the parties will exchange evidence and Google must provide documents to the Class Representative. Other procedural steps are discussed, including a “list of issues” in the case, Google’s costs and the implementation of a confidentiality regime.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal makes an Order in respect of the agreement of a list of issues with Google, disclosure and the listing of subsequent Case Management Conferences. The Tribunal schedules the second Case Management Conference for 18 December 2025 for 1 day, with 1 day in reserve. Trial is listed to start on the first available date on or after 25 September 2028.

On 5 September 2025 the European Commission announces the adoption of an infringement decision against Google for its conduct and subjected Google to a €2.95 billion fine.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal hears arguments from both parties on timetable to trial and disclosure that Google must give to the Class Representative.

The European Commission publishes a redacted version of its full, 363-page provisional infringement Decision against Google for its anti-competitive conduct in ad tech markets.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal makes an Order in respect of disclosure from Google to the Class Representative and sets deadlines for the exchange of evidence in the run-up to the trial beginning in September 2028.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal publishes its judgment determining that the parties should exchange expert evidence on a sequential basis and permitting Google to file an application to strike out claims arising out of losses incurred before 1 October 2015 on the basis of complex legal arguments that these are time-barred. The Competition Appeal Tribunal’s order sets directions for the parties to exchange submissions on Google’s forthcoming strike out application.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal makes an Order allowing the Class Representative to remove claims for losses prior to 1 October 2015 before any strike out application is made by Google, and consequential directions. The Order amends the definition of Class Period in the Collective Proceedings Order to start on 1 October 2015 rather than 1 January 2014. As a result, the class definition is amended to Publishers and Publisher Partners who received revenue from the sale of Online Display Ads during the period 1 October 2015 to 30 November 2022 inclusive. Please see the FAQs for further information on class membership.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal publishes its judgment determining that Google shall produce additional documentary disclosure to the Class Representative, including a confidential version of the European Commission’s ad tech infringement decision against Google, and that the parties shall engage in a process by which they agree voluntary disclosure to be requested from a subset of Publisher class members, with any disputes regarding the form of disclosure or the disclosing class members deferred to another hearing. The Tribunal also granted permission for each party to adduce specified categories of expert evidence at trial and set a timetable for the parties to make amendments to their pleadings.