The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has certified the £7 billion claim against Google brought by Nikki Stopford, a consumer rights campaigner, on behalf of tens of millions of UK consumers – rejecting Google’s attempt to torpedo the claim early, and adding to the Big Tech firm’s legal and regulatory woes.

The specialist UK court will require Google to defend its longstanding conduct in the search engine market, after approving the landmark legal action brought by Nikki Stopford and legal firm Hausfeld & Co LLP.

The claim accuses Google of exploiting its dominance in the search market to increase advertising costs, which were ultimately passed on to consumers.

With certification now secured, millions of UK consumers are poised to pursue compensation for the economic harm caused by Google’s conduct.

The CAT’s decision is the latest in a series of setbacks for Google’s parent company Alphabet, which is fighting to preserve its all-important dominance in online search globally.

Earlier this month, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) proposed that the US courts should force Google to sell its Chrome web browser, prohibiting Google from entering into agreements that make it the default search engine on smartphones and browsers, and additional restrictions to ensure its Android smartphone software does not favour Google Search.

The full CAT judgment can be viewed here. The UK court dismissed Google’s arguments in full, including its attempt to have the claim struck out.

The CAT held that Ms Stopford had put forward a serious case and authorised her to act as the class representative and permitted the claim to proceed to trial.

Following the CAT’s certification, Ms Stopford will represent all UK-domiciled consumers aged 16 years or over who, during the period from 1 January 2011 until 7 September 2023 (inclusive), purchased goods and/or services from a business selling in the UK, which used search advertising services provided by Google.

The action is being brought as an opt-out collective action, meaning that everyone in the UK affected is automatically included as a claimant in the case unless they opt out.

Recommended reading

• Google Braces for Anti-trust Case in US
• Are Google’s Digital Advertising Methods Anti-Competitive?
• Google and Apple Face CMA Probe over Mobile Browser Market ‘Duopoly’ 

The Case Against Google

The collective action argues that Google used its dominant position in the UK search engine market to overcharge advertisers and that these costs were passed directly on to the consumer.

It alleges that Google forced mobile phone manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search and Google Chrome browser apps on devices that used Google’s Android operating system.

Further, it claims that Google paid billions to Apple to ensure that Google was the default search engine on all devices, such as the iPhone, that used Apple’s iOS operating system.

“This green light from the tribunal is a significant victory for UK consumers. Almost everybody uses Google as their go-to search engine, trusting it to deliver quality results at no cost,” Niki Stopford, class representative for the action said.

“But its service isn’t genuinely free because its dominance has resulted in increased costs for consumers. Google has been warned repeatedly by competition regulators. Yet it continues to rig the market to charge advertisers more, which raises the prices they charge consumers.

“This action seeks to promote healthier competition in digital markets, and to hold Google accountable and ensure that consumers are compensated for the harm caused by its conduct.”

Luke Streatfeild, partner at legal firm Hausfeld & Co LLP, who is leading the litigation, said: “This judgment is good news for UK consumers, as the case for compensation brought by our client on their behalf can now proceed to trial.

“The judgment is also helpful in clarifying the standard for assessing exclusionary conduct by dominant companies, in particular in digital markets with high barriers to entry, and it will be a useful reference point in future cases that aim to promote fairer competition and better outcomes for consumers in those marketplaces.”