Intel will have to pay up in an antitrust case dating back to 2009, Reuters reported on Wednesday. The company has lost its challenge against a €376 million ($438.7 million) regulatory fine levied by the European Commission. However, Intel managed to get the amount reduced to 237 million euros ($276.6 million).
The case began in 2009, when mobile computing was in its infancy and netbooks (remember those?) were all the rage in the PC space. At the time, the EU ruled that Intel violated antitrust laws on multiple fronts. First, it used illegal hidden rebates to push rivals out of the PC processor market. Second, it paid manufacturers to delay or stop production of AMD-powered products.
The latter, the portion that today's fine deals with, was classified as "naked restrictions." It regarded anticompetitive payments Intel made to HP, Acer and Lenovo between 2002 and 2006.
As often happens in these situations, the legal process bounced back and forth through the courts for years. In 2017, Europe's highest court ordered the case to be re-examined, citing a lack of proper economic assessment of how Intel's behavior affected its rivals. Europe's second-highest court then overturned the judgment from the first (hidden rebates) portion of the fine in 2022, a move confirmed by the EU Court of Justice last year. That penalty, initially set at a whopping €1.06 billion ($1.2 billion), was wiped off the books.
The second ("naked restrictions") fine was imposed in 2023 after European courts upheld that portion. Intel's latest challenge sought to have that one removed, too. Instead, it will have to settle for shaving one-third off the initial sum.
With today’s judgment, it's tempting to declare the matter over and done with. But the Commission and Intel can still appeal the decision to the EU Court of Justice on points of law. Tune in next year to see if this long, strange saga has another chapter.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/intel-loses-its-latest-challenge-to-16-year-old-eu-antitrust-case-200746004.html?src=rss
