The case centres on arrangements between Google and the two largest telecommunications providers in Australia, Telstra and Optus. 

Between late 2019 and early 2021, both companies agreed to pre-install Google Search on Android devices they sold. In exchange, Google shared a slice of advertising revenue with the telcos. These exclusive deals meant rival search engines had little to no access to millions of mobile users.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said the conduct breached competition law. Google has admitted that the agreements had a huge impact on market rivals and promised not to repeat them. 

The regulator and Google have jointly recommended the A$55 million penalty to the Federal Court, which will make the final decision on whether the fine is appropriate.

“Today’s outcome created the potential for millions of Australians to have greater search choice in the future, and for competing search providers to gain meaningful exposure to Australian consumers,” said ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb.

Regulators worldwide are tightening their belts when it comes to large technology firms, and Australia has taken a particularly aggressive stance. 

From forcing Google and Meta to pay local publishers for news content to challenging Apple and Google’s app store dominance in a case brought by Fortnite-maker Epic Games, Canberra has consistently objected against Big Tech. 

More recently, YouTube was added to the list of social platforms barred from admitting users under 16.

For Google, this fine adds to a list of regulatory setbacks in the country. Still, the company has sought to present the resolution as constructive. 

A spokesperson said Google was “pleased to resolve the ACCC’s concerns which involved provisions that haven’t been in our commercial agreements for some time,” adding that Android device makers would now have “more flexibility to pre-load browsers and search apps.”

Telstra and Optus, both of which have cooperated with the investigation, have also signed undertakings not to renew or enter similar deals with Google since 2024. Their decision opens the door for other search providers to compete for pre-installation space on Android devices.

The ACCC noted that the case arrives at a moment when artificial intelligence is changing the way people search for information. This creates new opportunities for rivals to challenge Google’s supremacy, if they are given fair access to the market.

According to a charge sheet, FHC/ABJ/CR/197/2025, the commission alleges that the accused wilfully failed to appear before it on March 6, 2025, following an official summons issued on February 25. 

The document lists John Ugbe, Gozie Onumonu, Adewunmi Ogunsanya, and five other directors as defendants.

This follows the Federal High Court’s dismissal of a suit filed by MultiChoice on May 8, which sought legal backing for its controversial price hike on DStv and GOtv subscriptions. Justice James Omotosho ruled that the suit was “an abuse of court process”.

The FCCPC claims that the accused deliberately failed to submit documents relevant to its probe, a breach of section 3 of the FCCPC Act 2018. 

The charge sheet states: “Being Directors of MultiChoice Nigeria Limited on or about the 6th day of March, 2025, at 23 Jimmy Carter Street, Asokoro, Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Court, [they] caused the aforesaid MultiChoice Nigeria Limited to fail to produce documents which the Company was required to produce, in compliance with a lawful summons issued and dated 25 February, 2025, and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 3 of the FCCPC Act 2018.”

Beyond failing to appear, the commission says MultiChoice’s leadership actively hindered its investigation by refusing to disclose requested documents, an act the FCCPC considers a direct challenge to its regulatory authority.

When the matter came up in court on Tuesday, the Commission’s lawyer informed Justice Omotosho that while the company had been served, the individual directors named in the charge had not yet received personal service. Justice Omotosho subsequently adjourned the case until October 7, 2025, for arraignment.

This issue is rooted in FCCPC’s concerns over repeated and unexplained price increases by MultiChoice. In February, the Commission summoned Ugbe to explain what it described as “frequent price hikes, potential abuse of market dominance, and anti-competitive practices.” It warned that failure to provide clear justification could trigger regulatory sanctions.

MultiChoice objected, filing a case through its legal team led by Onigbanjo SAN. The company argued it had not been given a fair hearing and sought to block the Commission from taking further action, citing a letter dated March 3, 2025. The court, however, dismissed the suit, stating that it was an attempt to stall accountability.