The European justice has put a stop — not a final end — to one of the longest and most symbolic cases in the chip industry. The General Court of the European Union has confirmed that Intel abused its dominant position in the x86 CPU market to hinder AMD, establishing the anticompetitive practices Brussels has been pursuing for nearly two decades. However, the court significantly reduced the fine: from €376 million to €237.1 million, approximately $278 million.
The ruling does not exonerate Intel nor rewrite history. On the contrary, it consolidates the narrative that many analysts and tech enthusiasts have long accepted: for years, the Santa Clara giant used its market power to complicate, if not block, the arrival of AMD-based products to major computer manufacturers.
What exactly has the EU General Court decided?
The General Court’s decision confirms the European Commission’s 2023 ruling, which had already recalculated part of the historic fine imposed on Intel in 2009 — then €1.06 billion, a record in EU competition policy — focusing on the so-called “naked restrictions”.
These restrictions are not simple aggressive discounts or volume rebates, but direct payments to manufacturers and distributors to delay, limit, or cancel AMD-based products. According to both the Commission and now the Court, Intel made such payments between 2002 and 2006 to companies like HP, Acer, and Lenovo, conditioning AMD’s presence in the consumer market.
The Luxembourg-based court considers it proven that these practices constituted an abuse of a dominant position in the x86 market and had a real effect on competition by reducing manufacturers’ freedom to choose their suppliers and limiting AMD’s access to certain market segments.
Why is the fine then reduced?
If the abuse persists, why is the penalty lowered? The General Court introduces an important nuance: proportionality. The judges conclude that the Commission did not properly weigh all relevant factors when setting the €376 million fine in 2023.
Specifically, the Court points out:
- The relatively limited number of affected computer models by the restrictions.
- The existence of intervals of up to a year between some of the anticompetitive behaviors.
With these elements, the court believes that a fine of €237.1 million better reflects the severity and duration of the infringement. It’s roughly a €140 million reduction, but the core message remains unchanged: Intel abused its dominance and violated European competition rules.
A case that dates back: from the record fine to the final correction
The case against Intel in Europe has a history:
- 2009: the European Commission issues a record fine of €1.06 billion for abuse of dominant position in the microprocessor market, combining fidelity rebates and direct restrictions on competition.
- 2022: the General Court overturns much of that sanction, finding that the economic analysis was not sufficiently rigorous in all aspects.
- 2023: the Commission recalculates the fine, focusing on the “naked restrictions,” setting a new amount of €376.36 million.
- 2025: the General Court confirms the abuse, but lowers the final figure to around €237 million.
The Commission and Intel can still appeal this latest decision to the Court of Justice of the EU, the highest European court. However, practically speaking, the case is entering its final phase with a clear conclusion: Intel’s practices were anticompetitive and violated European law.
What does this mean for Intel… and AMD?
For Intel, the ruling is a half victory. The company saves nearly €140 million compared to the 2023 fine and much more compared to the record-breaking 2009 amount. But it loses reputation and legal ground: it’s officially confirmed, in black and white, that the company abused its dominant position in the x86 CPU market.
At a time when the manufacturer is repositioning itself against NVIDIA and AMD in AI, data centers, and foundry manufacturing for third parties, such rulings serve as reminders that its competition history will remain under regulators’ scrutiny.
For AMD, the ruling holds more symbolic than economic significance. It doesn’t entail direct compensation, but it’s the official recognition of something long acknowledged in the sector: during much of the 2000s, AMD competed in a tilted playing field, where product quality wasn’t the only factor influencing which CPU reached major PC builders.
This context adds more value, in hindsight, to AMD’s shift over the past decade, especially under Lisa Su’s leadership, in both CPUs and GPUs.
A message to the entire tech industry
Apart from the Intel–AMD rivalry, the case sends a clear message to the tech sector: Europe doesn’t forget or tire over time. The EU has already shown with other giants — like Microsoft back in the day — that it is willing to keep complex cases alive for years until reaching a solid resolution.
The decision also reinforces the idea that European regulators distinguish between:
- Aggressive but legitimate competition through pricing and discounts.
- And agreements that cross the line by directly conditioning which products reach the market and which stay out.
Fundamentally, the General Court is telling industry giants that trade deals cannot become invisible barriers for smaller rivals, even if those rivals only aim for a slice of the market.
What’s next?
The next step will be to decide whether Intel or the European Commission will take the case to the Court of Justice of the EU. This is not a new full trial but a limited review on legal grounds.
If no appeal is filed, the €237.1 million fine will stand and the case will be remembered as:
- One of the longest legal battles in consumer hardware history.
- A warning to any company holding a dominant position in critical markets like chips, cloud, or AI.
- And another piece in the puzzle of how Europe aims to regulate its tech providers, whether American, European, or Asian.
Meanwhile, the x86 market is in a very different phase than the 2000s, with AMD stronger than ever, Intel trying to redefine its role in the AI era, and a new wave of digital regulations indicating that, over the next decade, tech giants’ business practices will face even closer scrutiny than before.
via: reuters and elchapuzasinformatico