TL;DR: Google submitted a compliance plan to the EU after a €2.95 billion fine, but instead of structural change, they’re proposing product tweaks. Brussels wants a breakup. The lesson for SaaS businesses: when your growth problem is structural, tactical fixes won’t save you.
Google submitted its compliance plan to the European Commission this week after a €2.95 billion fine for favouring its own adtech services.
They met the 60-day deadline. They also filed an appeal.
Instead of accepting a breakup, they’re offering product tweaks. More pricing flexibility. Better interoperability. Surface-level changes.
You’re not Google. You don’t have €13 billion for legal battles or 40% to 90% control of an entire industry.
But here’s why this matters: the same dynamic plays out in every market. Big player controls the infrastructure. Smaller players need access. When the rules change, who survives?
What Market Dominance Looks Like
Google controls 40% to 90% of every step in online advertising. Buy side, sell side, exchange. The whole stack.
The numbers tell the story:
$264.6 billion in advertising revenue (2024)
- 75.6% of Google’s total revenue comes from ads
- Fourth major EU penalty in a decade (€4.3B in 2018, €2.42B in 2017, €1.49B in 2019)
Fines don’t change behaviour when they’re line items on a balance sheet.
Publishers argue only a structural breakup will unlock the €120 billion European adtech market. Google argues divestment would be “technically unworkable” and destabilise the ecosystem.
Translation: breaking up the business would hurt revenue.
What this means for SaaS businesses: When someone else controls your distribution, pricing, and customer access, you don’t have a growth strategy. You have permission to exist.
Bottom line: Platform dependency isn’t a partnership. It’s a vulnerability dressed up as a distribution channel.
Why Behavioural Fixes Fail
Google’s compliance proposal includes pricing flexibility in Ad Manager and better tool interoperability. Product changes, not structural reform.
The European Commission’s position: when you own the buy side, sell side, and exchange, you control the entire transaction. That’s not a behaviour problem. That’s a structural conflict of interest.
Behavioural remedies have been tried twice before in EU history. They’re rare because they’re hard to reverse. Brussels says behavioural changes won’t fix this.
The US Justice Department agrees. Google faces trial on 22 September 2025 after a judge found illegal monopolies in its adtech business. The DOJ wants Google to sell its ad exchange AdX and divest its publisher ad server DoubleClick for Publishers.
Two continents. Same diagnosis.
The SaaS lesson: Product tweaks don’t fix business model problems. More features won’t fix positioning. Better onboarding won’t fix targeting. New messaging won’t fix a broken ICP.
When the issue is structural, the solution is structural.
Key insight: If you’re solving the same problem every quarter with different tactics, you’re treating symptoms. Go deeper.
Three Questions Every SaaS Business Should Ask
I’ve watched companies try to fix structural problems with tactical workarounds for 25 years. The outcome is always the same.
Where Are You Vulnerable to Platform Control?
List every platform that controls your customer acquisition, pricing, or distribution.
What happens if they change terms tomorrow? Increase fees by 30%? Prioritise competitors in search results? Cut off API access?
If you don’t have an answer, you have a dependency problem.
Google built a business where they control supply (publishers), demand (advertisers), and the marketplace connecting them. When one player owns all three sides, they set the rules.
Where do you lack control in your business?
Are You Fixing Symptoms or Structure?
High churn? Adding onboarding won’t fix it if you’re targeting the wrong customers.
Long sales cycles? More content won’t help if your positioning is unclear.
Stalled growth? New features won’t move the needle if your market is saturated or your ICP is wrong.
Google is offering product changes to avoid structural reform. Most SaaS businesses do the same thing. They add features instead of changing strategy. They optimise funnels instead of rethinking who they sell to.
Structural problems need structural solutions.
What Happens When Market Structures Shift?
Regulatory changes create opportunities. The EU and US are both forcing Google to restructure. Publishers will get new options. Advertisers will have new choices. The market will redistribute.
When dominant players get disrupted, there’s space to move.
Are you positioned to take advantage when structures crack?
Reality check: Most businesses aren’t ready because they’re too dependent on the current structure to pivot when it shifts.
What to Do Next
This isn’t about Google. It’s about what you do when you don’t have market dominance.
You won’t out-feature them. You won’t out-spend them. You need a different approach.
Audit Your Dependencies
Make a list of every platform, partner, or channel that controls access to your customers.
For each one, write down:
- What percentage of your revenue depends on them
- What happens if they change pricing or terms
- Whether you have a viable alternative
That’s your vulnerability map.
Identify Structural Problems
Stop putting tactical fixes on strategic problems.
If your churn is high because you’re targeting the wrong customers, better onboarding won’t save you. If your sales cycle is too long because your positioning is muddy, more sales enablement content won’t shorten it.
Go to the root. Change the ICP. Rebuild the positioning. Shift the business model.
Build Owned Infrastructure
Own your customer relationships. Own your data. Own your distribution channels where possible.
It’s slower. It’s harder. It’s also the only way to control your own growth trajectory.
Google’s strategy works because they own the infrastructure. Publishers and advertisers need Google more than Google needs any individual publisher or advertiser.
The SaaS equivalent: own your audience, own your data, own your customer relationships. Don’t rent them from platforms that change the rules whenever it suits them.
Final word: Most companies choose cosmetic fixes because they’re cheaper, faster, and don’t threaten the existing business model. Real change requires breaking things that currently make money. The question isn’t whether you’ll need to make structural changes. The question is whether you’ll make them before the market forces them on you.
