An EU court has just ruled that Google spent 15 years tilting search results in its own favor against rival comparison platforms
Google has been ordered to pay nearly $2 billion to Klarna after a Stockholm court ruled the tech giant had illegally favored its own price comparison service over rivals in search results - a ruling that cuts to the heart of how consumers find mortgage products online.
The Stockholm Patent and Market Court ruled Wednesday that Google had illegally promoted its own comparison shopping tool over Klarna's PriceRunner across UK, Swedish, and Danish markets between 2008 and 2023. The $1.97 billion judgment, including nearly $500 million in accrued interest, is the largest ever in a Swedish antitrust case, though well short of the $8 billion Klarna had originally sought.
"PriceRunner is considered to have suffered damage as a result of Google having illegally favored its price comparison service for many years," the court said. Google said it "doesn't agree with the court's decision" and is reviewing its legal options.
Klarna, which acquired PriceRunner in 2022 to build out its payments and shopping ambitions, listed on the New York Stock Exchange in September 2025. Shares rose 5% in early trading Wednesday, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Why this matters for US mortgage professionals
The US mortgage market doesn't have comparison sites quite like the UK's, where aggregators drive upward of 40% of insurance purchases. But the US has LendingTree, Bankrate, NerdWallet, and Credible - platforms that dominate mortgage-related Google search results and generate leads they sell to lenders and brokers. All of them depend on Google organic search for the bulk of their consumer traffic.
Wednesday's ruling establishes that Google's approach to surfacing its own comparison tools ahead of competitors was illegal, and that the damages from doing so run into billions across 15 years. That finding has implications for every financial services platform - mortgage-related or otherwise - that built its audience on search traffic Google was tilting in its own favor.
The friction this creates is something US brokers know directly. As Mortgage Professional America has reported on the intensifying competition between brokers and retail lenders for borrower attention, rate comparison sites have become an important front in that battle - platforms that often surface lower advertised rates tied to heavy discount points without making the true cost of borrowing immediately clear. Amir Nurani of Left Coast Leaders in California told MPA that retailers "hide the fact that the discount point is tied to the rates." Independent brokers, by contrast, present multiple lenders transparently. The problem is getting in front of borrowers before the comparison sites do.
That's why some in the broker community have looked beyond Google entirely. Jennifer Gormer of Integrity Home Lending told MPA she prefers UWM's FindAMortgageBroker.com for connecting with borrowers. "It sure beats finding a broker via Google," she said.
The broader litigation picture
The Klarna ruling is the latest in a long line of antitrust actions stemming from the European Commission's 2017 ruling that Google had abused its dominant position in search by favoring its own comparison service. The Commission fined Google €2.42 billion at the time. After that ruling, a wave of European comparison platforms launched follow-on damages suits. Several remain pending.
In the US, Google is separately appealing a September 2025 remedies order in the DOJ's antitrust case over its search market dominance, with oral arguments at the DC Circuit expected later this year. The Stockholm ruling won't directly affect US proceedings, but it adds to a global picture of regulators and courts concluding that Google's search dominance was maintained, at least in part, through self-preferencing.
For US mortgage brokers and LOs competing for consumer attention against well-funded comparison platforms, the ruling is a reminder that the search environment they've been competing in was never entirely neutral. Klarna put it in consumer terms: "This ruling supports a healthier, more competitive market for the way people compare products and services." Competition attorneys on both sides of the Atlantic are already working out what to do with it.
