Google Shopping damages: what the claims tell us about funding

UKEU

24 Sept

Written By Erso

The European Google Shopping damages cases are producing striking figures. In Sweden, PriceRunner has obtained a first-instance award worth billions of kronor; in Germany, idealo has secured an award of more than €465 million including interest. Several other claims are still being pursued.

For claimants and their advisers, the figures are only part of the story. These cases take years, require substantial investment and can remain uncertain even after a favourable judgment. They also show that a claimant’s ability to finance litigation and its willingness to carry the cost and risk are separate questions.

The awards and claims

On 1 July 2026, Sweden’s Patent and Market Court ordered Google to pay PriceRunner approximately SEK 14.3 billion in competition damages. The court awarded accrued interest in addition to those damages. Klarna, which acquired PriceRunner in 2022, described the combined damages and interest as approximately $1.97 billion.

Neither figure is a final recovery. Google and PriceRunner appealed the judgment in July 2026, with PriceRunner maintaining that the award did not fully reflect the harm it suffered. Klarna has also cautioned that any amount it ultimately receives would be reduced by arrangements with former PriceRunner shareholders and its litigation funder, as well as applicable tax.

In Germany, the Berlin II Regional Court awarded idealo approximately €465 million including interest in November 2025. idealo had expanded its claim to at least €3.3 billion, including interest, and has said it intends to pursue a higher recovery. The substantial gap between the amount sought and the first-instance award illustrates how consequential the assessment of damages can be, even where a claimant establishes harm.

Claims elsewhere add to the picture. Moltiply has said that experts commissioned by its subsidiary 7Pixel, which operates Trovaprezzi.it, estimate its losses at €2.97 billion including interest and the structural effects of the alleged abuse. Kelkoo’s UK proceedings remain before the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Foundem reached a confidential settlement with Google during the first UK Google Shopping trial, and its proceedings were withdrawn on 27 July 2026.

In the Netherlands, LitFin has backed claims brought on behalf of two groups of comparison-shopping services. The first, filed in Amsterdam for five businesses in April 2025, was announced at more than €900 million. A second claim for six further businesses followed in September 2025. These are claims advanced by the parties, rather than court findings as to the amount of loss.

Why PriceRunner’s funding matters

PriceRunner disclosed when it launched its case in February 2022 that it had secured external funding which it considered sufficient to cover the litigation costs. Klarna acquired the business later that year, but the funding arrangement remained relevant: Klarna’s July 2026 investor announcement expressly refers to a share of any eventual recovery going to its litigation funder.

This makes PriceRunner a useful example of litigation finance existing alongside substantial corporate ownership. The public disclosures do not tell us every term of the arrangement, or why it was retained after the acquisition. They do show that an acquisition by a larger business did not remove the funder from the economics of the claim.

The other cases should not be placed in the same category without evidence. idealo is majority-owned by Axel Springer, but the public materials reviewed for this article do not establish how its litigation has been financed. LitFin, by contrast, has publicly identified itself as backing the Amsterdam claims.

The cost of waiting

PriceRunner filed its case in February 2022 and received a first-instance judgment in July 2026: roughly four years and five months later. idealo filed in April 2019 and obtained its first-instance judgment in November 2025, more than six and a half years later. An appeal can extend that period further.

Interest may form a substantial part of an eventual award, but it does not pay the bills as they arise. Through years of litigation, a claimant may need to pay lawyers and economists, manage disclosure and devote significant internal time to the case. It must decide whether to meet those costs itself, obtain external capital or combine different forms of support.

That decision does not turn solely on whether the business can afford to sue. A company with the necessary resources may still prefer to preserve cash for its operations or other investments, particularly when the timing and amount of any recovery remain uncertain.

Funding and insurance address different needs

Third-party funding can provide the cash needed to pursue a claim and transfer some of the financial risk to the funder. In exchange, the funder will generally receive an agreed return from a successful recovery. The price of that arrangement needs to be weighed against the value of the cash flow and risk transfer it provides.

A claimant that is willing to pay its legal costs as the case progresses may also consider insurance covering its own-side legal costs, sometimes described as capital protection insurance. Depending on the policy, this can reimburse some or all covered fees and expenses if the claim fails. It is distinct from cover for an opponent’s recoverable costs: the focus here is the claimant’s own expenditure.

The timing matters. Insurance of this kind ordinarily responds to an insured loss under the policy terms; it does not itself advance the money needed to conduct the litigation. A claimant choosing that route still needs to meet its interim costs. In return, it may be able to protect some of its downside while retaining more of a successful recovery, subject to the premium, limits, exclusions and other policy terms.

There is no universal answer. A claimant that wants to avoid tying up cash for years may value funding even if it costs more following a win. Another may be comfortable paying its own costs but unwilling to leave all that expenditure at risk. Obtaining indicative terms for both funding and insurance allows the claimant to compare the likely effect on cash flow, downside exposure and net recovery.

What the cases mean for underwriting

The European Commission’s 2017 Google Shopping decision provides an important foundation for claims concerning the infringement it established. It does not establish that every claimant suffered a particular loss, or resolve allegations about conduct beyond the decision’s scope.

Those remaining questions matter. Claimants and defendants may dispute causation, what would have happened without the conduct, how long any further infringement lasted and the amount of damages. The first-instance decisions in PriceRunner and idealo show why a substantial underlying claim should not be treated as a predictable award, still less as an immediate cash receipt.

For funders and insurers, that means assessing the evidence behind each claimant’s loss, the cost and duration of the proceedings, and the prospect of an appeal. For claimants, it means deciding early how much cash they are willing to commit and how much litigation risk they want to retain.

We are actively looking at competition damages claims in the UK and across European national courts. Where a business is considering a claim, the financing question is more useful when framed this way: what combination of cash flow, risk protection and share of the eventual recovery best suits this case and this claimant?

Sources: Stockholm Patent and Market Court, PMT 1860-22, 1 July 2026; Klarna Group plc investor announcement, 1 July 2026; AFP reporting on the PriceRunner appeals, 22 July 2026; Berlin II Regional Court, 16 O 195/19 Kart (2), 13 November 2025; idealo announcement, November 2025; Moltiply Group financial disclosures; Competition Appeal Tribunal, Infederation Ltd v Google Inc and Others; Geradin Partners/LitFin announcements concerning the Amsterdam Google Shopping claims.

KEY CONTACTS

Erso