A Swedish court has ordered Google to pay about SEK 14.3 billion (€1.29 billion) in damages to PriceRunner, the Swedish price comparison service owned by Klarna, after finding that Google unlawfully favoured its own shopping comparison service for years.
The judgment was issued on Wednesday by the Swedish Patent and Market Court (Patent- och marknadsdomstolen) at Stockholm District Court. The court found that PriceRunner suffered economic harm because Google gave its own comparison shopping service more favourable placement and presentation in search results than rival services.
PriceRunner had sought a much higher amount: around SEK 64 billion (€5.77 billion) in damages and SEK 14 billion (€1.26 billion) in accrued interest. The court upheld the company’s claim only in part, but the award is still the largest ever ordered in a Swedish competition case.
Why the Google PriceRunner ruling matters
The case concerns a central issue in European competition law: whether large digital platforms can use their control over key online infrastructure to favour their own services over competitors.
For many consumers, Google Search is the first step when comparing products and prices online. Price comparison services argue that visibility in search results is therefore essential. If Google gives its own service more prominent treatment, competitors may lose traffic, revenue and market share.
The Swedish court said Google must pay compensation for periods covering almost 15 years in the United Kingdom and just over 10 years in Sweden and Denmark. The ruling covers damages in several currencies: just over SEK 1 billion (€90 million), DKK 675 million (€91 million) and GBP 950 million (€1.11 billion), plus accrued interest.
According to Klarna, the total award including interest amounts to about USD 1.97 billion, or roughly €1.73 billion.
A Swedish case with European roots
The Swedish ruling follows the European Commission’s 2017 Google Shopping decision, one of the most important EU antitrust cases against a digital platform.
In that decision, the Commission found that Google had abused its dominant position as a search engine by giving an illegal advantage to its own comparison shopping service. The Court of Justice of the European Union later upheld the Commission’s position and confirmed the €2.42 billion fine against Google.
The Swedish case is different because it concerns damages owed to a private company, not a regulatory fine. PriceRunner sued Google Sweden AB, Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. in 2022, arguing that the unlawful conduct damaged its business in Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom.
PriceRunner won, but not everything it asked for
The court accepted that Google’s conduct continued for longer than Google had argued and that it caused harm to PriceRunner. However, it also found that parts of PriceRunner’s claim had been brought too late.
Judge Linda Kullberg said the damages were “without doubt the largest ever awarded in a Swedish competition case,” even though PriceRunner had not fully succeeded in its action.
The judgment therefore represents a partial victory for PriceRunner and Klarna. The amount awarded is substantial, but far below the company’s original claim.
Google is expected to challenge the decision
Google disagrees with the ruling and is considering its legal options. A company spokesperson told Reuters that Google had made changes to its shopping ads since 2017 and argued that those changes support comparison shopping services.
This means the case may not be over. Klarna’s legal representatives have indicated that an appeal could take more than a year, and possibly several years, before any payment is made.
The outcome will be closely watched across Europe. Similar damages claims linked to Google Shopping have been brought in other countries, including Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy.
The wider impact on digital competition in Europe
The Google PriceRunner ruling strengthens the role of national courts in enforcing competition law against large technology companies. It also shows how EU antitrust decisions can lead to major follow-on damages claims years later.
For Nordic and European digital markets, the case raises a broader question: whether independent online services can compete fairly when the main gateway to consumers is controlled by a dominant platform.
Even if Google appeals, the Swedish judgment adds pressure on Big Tech companies operating in Europe. It also gives other companies a clearer path to seek compensation when regulators have already found unlawful self-preferencing or abuse of dominance.
