Google's €890M DMA Fine: What Self-Preferencing and Anti-Steering Enforcement Means for Your SaaS

On 23 July 2026, the European Commission fined Google €890 million for two separate breaches of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) — and, more importantly for anyone building a product that depends on Google Search or Google Play, ordered specific remedial measures with a 60-day compliance deadline. Miss it, and Google risks periodic penalty payments of up to 5% of its average daily worldwide turnover, for every day the non-compliance continues.

That last part is the detail worth pausing on. A one-off fine, even a large one, is a cost of doing business for a company Google's size. A penalty that compounds daily against turnover is a different kind of pressure — and it's the mechanism the DMA was actually built around. If you sell through Google Play, or you run anything that competes with a Google-owned vertical (shopping comparison, hotel booking, flight search, sports data) in Search results, this decision is the clearest picture yet of what "DMA compliance" concretely requires a gatekeeper to do, not just what it costs them when they don't.

The two violations, in plain terms

The Commission issued two separate decisions on the same day, each addressing a different DMA obligation:

Self-preferencing: the Commission found that Google gives its own shopping, hotel, transport and sports results preferential treatment in Search — placing them at the top of the results page or giving them "enhanced visuals and filters" that comparable third-party listings don't get. This is the same Article 6(5) obligation that requires gatekeepers to apply the same ranking rules to their own services as to everyone else's.

Anti-steering: app developers distributing through Google Play are legally entitled to inform users about cheaper offers elsewhere (a developer's own website, another app store) and to direct them there without paying Google for the privilege. The Commission's finding is specific here: Google is allowed to charge a fee for the initial customer acquisition that happens via Play — the violation was that "the level of the steering-related fees charged by Google and the length of the charging period for these fees went beyond what is considered compliant with the DMA." In other words, this wasn't a "no fees at all" ruling — it's a ruling that the size and duration of Google's fee made the steering right meaningless in practice.

What Google is now legally required to do

This is the part that matters more than the fine amount. Alongside the €890M, the Commission's decision is an enforcement order. Google must:

1. Treat third-party services appearing in Google Search results fairly and non-discriminatorily relative to its own services, and
2. Allow app developers on Google Play — both technically and contractually — to freely communicate, promote offers, and conclude contracts with users, inside and outside the Play Store.

Google has 60 days from the decision (23 July 2026), putting the deadline at 21 September 2026. If Google doesn't comply by then, it risks periodic penalty payments of up to 5% of its average daily worldwide turnover — a separate and ongoing enforcement mechanism from the one-off fine, calculated per day for as long as the non-compliance continues, distinct from the DMA's standalone fining power of up to 10% of annual worldwide turnover (20% for repeat infringement).

The Commission's press release notes Google has already proposed and started testing some changes — to how shopping, hotel and flight results are displayed, and to its Play steering terms — and that dialogue is continuing on how the same self-preferencing principles apply to Google's AI Overviews and AI Mode. None of that is confirmed as sufficient yet; the Commission is "currently assessing" it. Google can also appeal the decisions.

If you compete with a Google-owned vertical in Search

If your product is a price comparison tool, a hotel or flights aggregator, a sports-data service, or anything else that shows up in the same result set as a Google-owned equivalent, this decision gives you two concrete things to act on:

• A documented standard to measure against. The Commission's finding — preferential placement "at the top of the search results page" and "enhanced visuals and filters" for Google's own services — is now the operative definition of what non-compliant ranking looks like under Article 6(5). If your own visibility in Search hasn't visibly changed despite Google's claimed compliance testing, you have a concrete comparison point, not just a vague "we rank worse than Google" complaint.
• A formal channel to report it. The Commission runs a DMA business submission channel specifically for this: "To contact the DMA Team as a business, please submit your request here. We will treat your submission as market information, and we will take it into account in our ongoing monitoring activity." This isn't a formal complaint procedure with a guaranteed response, but it's the mechanism by which the Commission builds the evidence base for exactly this kind of enforcement action — worth using if you have concrete before/after screenshots of ranking behavior.

If you distribute through Google Play

The practical question for any app developer is simple: can you now tell users about cheaper alternatives and actually get away with it?

• Under Article 5(4), you're entitled to communicate — inside and outside your app — that a purchase is cheaper elsewhere, and to link users there, without Google blocking that communication technically or contractually.
• Google can still charge you a fee tied to the initial customer acquisition through Play. What it can't do (per this decision) is charge a fee whose size or duration effectively cancels out the benefit of steering — that's the specific violation the Commission found.
• Google has proposed changes to its steering terms and is testing them; the Commission calls this "good progress" but hasn't signed off on it as compliant. Don't assume your current Play Developer Distribution Agreement terms are already DMA-compliant just because Google announced changes — check the actual terms that apply to your account, and re-check after 21 September when the compliance deadline passes.

The broader lesson: gatekeeper enforcement now has real teeth

Even if you're not competing with Google directly, this decision is a useful data point if any part of your distribution depends on a designated gatekeeper (Google, Apple, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Booking.com, and ByteDance are all currently designated). The DMA's enforcement structure has two distinct financial levers, and this decision shows both:

• Article 30 — fines, up to 10% of total worldwide annual turnover for a first infringement, up to 20% for a repeat one. This is what the €890M reflects (a fraction of the maximum, reflecting "gravity and duration" per the Commission's own reasoning).
• Article 31 — periodic penalty payments, up to 5% of average daily worldwide turnover per day, used specifically to compel compliance with an order like the one issued here. This is the mechanism that turns "fix it eventually" into "fix it by this date."

For a SaaS whose growth channel runs through a gatekeeper's search results or app store, gatekeeper compliance outcomes are not abstract antitrust news — they're a direct input into your own distribution economics. Whether Google's testing changes to Shopping/Hotels/Flights ranking or its Play steering terms actually move the needle for third parties by the 21 September deadline is worth tracking regardless of whether you ever file anything yourself.

Timeline

Sources

• Commission fines Google €890 million for breaches of the Digital Markets Act — European Commission press release IP/26/1670, 23 July 2026 (primary source for all fine amounts, obligations, deadline and quotes)
• Commission fines Google €890 million for breaches of the Digital Markets Act — official DMA portal mirror of the decision
• DMA Citizens and Whistleblower Portal — EU Citizens Q&A — business submission channel and enforcement consequence overview (10-20% fines, periodic penalty payments)
• Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 (Digital Markets Act) — full regulation text on EUR-Lex, source for Articles 5(4), 6(5), 30 and 31

This is not legal advice. If a Play Store fee dispute or Search ranking complaint has real money behind it, talk to counsel who handles DMA matters — the Commission's business submission channel builds the evidence base for future enforcement, but it isn't a substitute for your own legal claim.