Tracking Antitrust Damage Awards: How to Find and Use EC and National Judgments from the Google Case

Stranded with a judgment in principle? How creditors, vendors and claimants find and use EC and national damage awards from the Google ad tech probe

Hook: If you are a creditor, vendor, or claimant who suspects lost revenue from Google’s ad tech conduct, you need two things fast: authoritative primary documents that prove liability, and a practical path from a European Commission preliminary finding to an enforceable national-court damage award. That journey is not obvious — decisions are scattered across EU databases, national courts publish unevenly, and enforcement requires advance asset-tracing work. This guide gives a step-by-step, 2026-proof playbook for locating the EC’s findings and the follow-on judgments that turn those findings into recoverable sums.

The 2026 context you must factor in

In late 2025 and early 2026 the European Commission escalated its ad tech probe into Google, issuing preliminary findings estimating billions in damages and reserving the right to force structural remedies. That push has catalysed follow-on litigation across Member States and renewed interest from private claimants and vendors seeking damages or enforcement leads.

Regulators globally (US states, UK, and other EU authorities) have echoed the Commission’s approach, meaning more parallel suits and cross-border enforcement issues. For claimants, the practical challenge is: where exactly do you find the authoritative EC documents, and how do you track and convert national follow-on judgments into collectible awards?

Quick overview — the practical pipeline

1. Locate the Commission’s authoritative material (press releases, case number, preliminary findings, and statements of objections).
2. Find follow-on filings and judgments in national courts (CAT in the UK, district courts in NL, Germany’s Landgerichte, France’s Tribunal judiciaire, etc.).
3. Collect and validate documents (official certified copies, ECLI identifiers, EUR-Lex links).
4. Prepare enforcement — asset tracing, preservation orders, and cross-border recognition.
5. Execute collection with local enforcement officers or insolvency steps.

Why this matters now (2026 trends)

• Volume of follow-on cases: The Commission’s firm stance in late 2025 spurred a wave of follow-on damages claims in 2026. Early movers secure the best evidence and interim remedies.
• Coordination between regulators: National authorities are more willing to share case data and to mirror Commission remedies.
• Data-driven discoverability: Courts and repositories increasingly publish machine-readable identifiers (ECLI, EUR-Lex metadata) — ideal for automated alerts.
• Asset tracing sophistication: Large damage awards drive claimants to adopt cross-border tracing and preservation early, not after judgment.

Step 1 — Find the EC’s antitrust materials (fast)

Start at the supply source: the European Commission’s Competition Directorate-General (DG COMP). For the Google ad tech probe you will want the case reference and the official documents that establish the facts and liability.

Where to look

• DG COMP press releases: The fastest way to get the case number and a summary of measures. Search the Commission press corner for “Google ad tech” (press releases often include the case ID).
• Competition decisions database: DG COMP publishes decisions and Articles 7/8/9 documents; use the Commission’s antitrust decisions page and filter by undertakings (Google/Alphabet).
• EUR-Lex: For the official, citable text of decisions and binding measures. Use the case number and document type filters.
• CURIA (CJEU/General Court): For appeals against Commission decisions. If Google appeals, you’ll find case dockets and judgments here.

Practical search steps

1. From the DG COMP press release, copy the Commission case or decision number (e.g., “COMP/XX.XXXX”).
2. Search that ID in EUR-Lex (add the year if needed). EUR-Lex provides PDF and XML downloads.
3. Open the competition decisions database entry and note any references to reserved remedies or damage estimates in the summary.
4. Save the official PDFs and capture the ECLI or Commission ID for later cross-referencing.

Tip: use the Commission’s RSS and EUR-Lex alerts to push new documents into your inbox or to a webhook for automated ingestion.

Step 2 — Track national follow-on filings and judgments

Commission findings are persuasive evidence in private damage claims, but damages are awarded and enforced by national courts. Locate these judgments with a targeted, jurisdiction-first approach.

Prioritise jurisdictions

Start where claim exposure and recoverability intersect: the jurisdictions with high damages claims, likely defendants’ commercial presence, and useful enforcement tools. In the Google ad tech context those jurisdictions typically include:

• United Kingdom (Competition Appeal Tribunal — CAT; High Court)
• Netherlands (district courts, often chosen for collective actions and follow-on suits)
• Germany (Landgerichte / Oberlandesgerichte)
• France (Tribunal judiciaire / Cour d’appel)
• Spain, Italy and other Member States where publishers, ad tech vendors or affected parties operate

Where and how to search national judgments

1. Official court websites: Use the CAT website for the UK; Rechtspraak.nl for the Netherlands; Legifrance for France; Bundesrechtsprechung & Landgericht portals for Germany; CENDOJ for Spain. Search for “Google” + “ad tech” + the Commission case ID.
2. National case numbers: Follow-on claims usually reference the EC case number or the Commission decision in the introductory facts; that link makes searches precise.
3. Judgments aggregators: Use commercial/legal databases (Lexis, Westlaw, Bloomberg Law) or specialist platforms (Darts-ip, PQMI) to cross-jurisdictionally search for follow-on actions.
4. Press, legal blogs and bar newsletters: Early filings are often reported in national business press and competition law blogs; use these to pick up filings before full judgments publish.

Example search query for a national database

• "Google" AND "ad tech" AND "COMP" AND "preliminary"
• Commission decision number OR the EU press release date
• Include plaintiff names (publishers, demand-side platforms) where available

Step 3 — Validate and assemble authoritative documentary proof

For enforcement or settlement you need certified, usable documents. Collect and validate in this order:

1. Official certified copy of the national judgment (court seal, signature).
2. Official copy of the Commission decision or preliminary findings from EUR-Lex or DG COMP.
3. ECLI or EUR-Lex URL for direct citation and legal certainty.
4. Translations and apostilles — depending on the enforcement jurisdiction you may need sworn translations and legalization (or use courts’ e-justice recognition rules where available).

Remember: follow-on claims typically rely on the EC decision as binding evidence of anti-competitive conduct under the “no re-litigation” principle. Collect the exact paragraph citations the national judge used — those are what enforcement officers will need.

Step 4 — Build an enforcement and asset-tracing plan

A judgment is only valuable if you can collect. Start asset tracing early — ideally while proceedings are pending.

Tools and records to consult

• Company registers: Companies House (UK), Kamer van Koophandel (NL), Handelsregister (DE), Infogreffe (FR) and national business registries.
• Bank account tracing: Use subpoenas where permissible; deploy the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) to freeze cross-border EU bank assets quickly.
• Commercial databases: Orbis / Bureau van Dijk, Lexis Entity and corporate linkage tools for beneficial ownership and group structures.
• Payment networks and ad tech records: In ad tech disputes, campaign reporting, ad server logs and payment routing documents are often decisive for tracing funds.

Pivotal enforcement mechanisms

1. European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) — use this where bank accounts are in EU Member States other than the judgment state.
2. Brussels I Recast (1215/2012): for recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments across EU Member States (post-Brexit note below).
3. National freezing orders and insolvency filings: Secure interim measures such as Mareva-style orders (or local equivalents) where available.
4. Mutual legal assistance and information requests: When tracing hidden assets, administrative orders and cooperation from local regulators can be decisive.

Brexit consideration: The UK is no longer party to Brussels I Recast. For UK judgment recognition or enforcement you must rely on domestic recognition routes, statutory registration procedures, or bilateral agreements. Plan separately for the UK and EU enforcement tracks.

Step 5 — Using the EC finding as leverage for settlement or damages proof

Follow-on plaintiffs can use the Commission decision as near-conclusive proof of infringement. That reduces defendant litigation risk and often produces earlier settlements. Use these practical tactics:

• Evidence bundling: Attach the Commission decision and the Commission press release to your claim as primary evidence of liability.
• Targeted damages models: Produce expert damage calculations that align with the Commission’s defined harm period and affected products; courts accept methodologies that mirror Commission findings (market shares, overcharge models, pass-through analyses).
• Seek interim relief: Request preservation measures (EAPO or domestic account freezes) in parallel with the claim to prevent dissipation before judgment.
• Early mediation with enforcement in mind: Structure settlement to include guarantees, escrow, or periodic payments to reduce collection risk.

Case law and precedent to cite (high-value authorities)

When building a damages claim under EU competition law, certain EU-level precedents are repeatedly decisive:

• Courage v. Crehan (C‑453/99) — private enforcement and the right to damages;
• Manfredi (C‑295/04) — clarification on damages and passing-on;
• EC Commission decisions — cite the specific Google ad tech decision paragraphs relied upon by national judges.

Advanced strategies for large claims and collective actions

For vendors and creditor groups seeking recovery at scale, adopt these advanced tactics in 2026:

1. Aggregation strategy: Use collective action mechanisms or representative actions (where available) to lower costs and centralise evidence. In the Netherlands and some EU states, representative mechanisms can be efficient for ad tech claims.
2. Data partnerships: Pool campaign-level data with other claimants to strengthen quantification and increase leverage.
3. Parallel jurisdiction mapping: Map defendant assets and seek judgments in states most favourable for enforcement (where bank accounts, IP, or receivables are located).
4. Hybrid enforcement teams: Combine local counsel, forensic accountants, and private investigators for complex asset recovery. For the forensic pipeline, consider field tools for OCR and metadata ingestion (PQMI).
5. Use automated monitoring: Feed ECLI, EUR-Lex, and national judgment RSS into a monitoring stack (webhooks — Slack/Teams — legal database). This reduces time-to-action for interim measures.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

• Relying on press summaries: Don’t treat news reports as evidence — always fetch the official Commission PDF and certified court orders.
• Ignoring jurisdictional nuances: Enforcement rules differ widely — consult local enforcement counsel before assuming Brussels I or EAPO will apply.
• Late asset tracing: Begin tracing at early stages; assets move quickly once a large award becomes public.
• Poor docket hygiene: Record ECLI, EUR-Lex URL, national case numbers, and certified-copy references to avoid duplicate steps later.

Mini case study — practical path from EC finding to recovery (hypothetical)

Vendor X supplied bidding software to publishers and lost commissions due to Google’s conduct. Vendor X’s practical path:

1. Saved the Commission’s preliminary findings and identified the exact infringement period and affected products on EUR-Lex.
2. Found a Dutch follow-on action using Rechtspraak.nl and confirmed that the national judge relied on the Commission decision in the judgment.
3. Commissioned an expert report mirroring Commission harm measures; secured an interim EAPO to freeze suspect accounts in two Member States.
4. Negotiated a settlement tying payments to escrow and performance milestones, supported by enforceable default provisions tied to the Dutch judgment.
5. Collected using local enforcement officers where settlement installments were not timely.

Checklist: what to collect and where to store it

• Official Commission decision PDF + EUR-Lex link
• Press release and DG COMP case ID
• Certified copies of national judgments (with court seals)
• ECLI identifiers and national case numbers
• Sworn translations and apostilles (where needed)
• Expert damages report tied to Commission findings
• Evidence of defendant assets (bank, corporate registry, payment flows)
• Preservation order filings and EAPO requests

Tools & services recommendation

Use a mix of free official resources and specialist tools:

• Official: EUR-Lex, Curia, DG COMP press corner, national court registers
• Commercial: PQMI (search & alerts), Darts-ip (IP/competition cross-jurisdiction), Orbis/BvD (company structures), legal research platforms (Lexis/Bloomberg)
• For enforcement: local bailiffs, forensic accountants, international asset-tracing providers

Final takeaways — how to act in the next 30 days

1. Download the EC preliminary findings and capture the case number and ECLI/EUR-Lex link.
2. Run jurisdictional searches in the top 3 enforcement states for your counterparty and set live alerts.
3. Commission a preliminary damages model tied to the Commission’s findings — inexpensive but strategic.
4. Initiate asset-mapping: corporate registries, bank traces, payment flows; consider an early EAPO if substantial liquid assets are suspected in the EU.
5. Decide whether to join a collective action or file a bespoke follow-on claim — early movers achieve better settlements.

Closing thoughts

The Commission’s 2025–2026 push on Google’s ad tech market has created a once-in-a-decade opportunity for creditors, vendors and claimants to convert regulatory findings into recoveries. Success will turn on speed, documentary discipline, and an enforcement plan that anticipates cross-border friction. Use the EC materials as your evidentiary backbone, pair them with focused national searches, and invest early in asset tracing.

Call to action: Need help locating the precise Commission decision, assembling a follow-on claim bundle, or designing an enforcement strategy? judgments.pro maintains a live EC & national judgments tracker, bespoke alerting, and enforcement-lead services for claimants — contact us to get a jurisdictional search and enforcement readiness report within 7 days.

Related Reading

• Hands‑On Review: Portable Quantum Metadata Ingest (PQMI) — OCR, Metadata & Field Pipelines (2026)
• Multi-Cloud Migration Playbook: Minimizing Recovery Risk During Large-Scale Moves (2026)
• Legal & Privacy Implications for Cloud Caching in 2026: A Practical Guide
• Observability Patterns We’re Betting On for Consumer Platforms in 2026
• From Studio to Screen: Careers in Scoring Big Franchises After Hans Zimmer’s Move to Harry Potter
• Inside JioStar’s Profit Engine: What the INR8,010 Crore Quarter Says About Indian Media Economics
• Streaming Mexican Food: Lessons from JioStar’s Big Play for Food Media Creators
• Hands-On Preview: What Resident Evil Requiem's Trailer Reveals About Tone, Pacing, and Scare Design
• Cinematic Indoor Drone B‑Roll: Using RGBIC Smart Lamps to Shape Mood