The Competition and Market Authority (CMA) has been very careful to state that its designation of Google is “not a finding of wrongdoing.” This specific choice of language is legally and strategically important, and it reveals a lot about how the UK’s new regulatory regime is designed to work.
By avoiding the language of blame or illegality, the CMA is signaling that this is not a traditional antitrust case. The goal of the new Digital Markets Act is not to punish companies for past anti-competitive behavior. Instead, its purpose is to recognize that some companies are so powerful that their very existence creates a risk of market failure, regardless of their intent.
This “no-fault” approach has several advantages for the regulator. It lowers the legal bar for intervention. The CMA doesn’t have to spend years proving that Google broke a specific law; it only has to prove that it has an entrenched position of market power. This makes the process much faster and more efficient.
Strategically, this language is intended to be less confrontational. It opens the door for a more collaborative process during the consultation phase, where the focus is on designing workable solutions for the future rather than arguing about past actions. It frames the intervention as a matter of market stewardship, not punishment.
However, for Google, this distinction may feel academic. While it may not have been found “guilty” of anything, it is still facing the prospect of having legally binding rules imposed upon its core business, backed by the threat of massive fines. It’s a new form of regulation where the consequences are just as serious, even if the premise is different.