Table of Contents

• EDITOR’S RAMBLE 🗣

• FEATURED REPORT 📰

• IN OTHER NEWS 🗞

• AROUND THE WEB 🌐

• STUFF THAT MIGHT HELP YOU 👌

EDITOR’S RAMBLE 🗣

Would you share your successful applications with someone else?

Some people would, some wouldn’t (I get both perspectives).

But either way, it doesn’t really matter anymore, because there are loads of successful law firm applications available to buy online.

Now, that’s useful for those who can afford it — seeing what a strong application looks like gives you an advantage. But it also means money decides who gets that insight.

Last year, I tried to help by sharing 14 of my own application answers for free (if you want them, they’re here). The problem is, my applications were from 2019 — before Covid, before AI — and I only have so many to share.

So now I’m working on something new: I want to build a bigger, up-to-date bank of successful applications across lots of firms.

The aim is to make access to these resources super affordable. Not £20 for a single application. Not an ongoing monthly subscription.

So, if you’ve got a successful application and want to contribute, I’ll pay you £10 for each one we add to the bank.

– Idin

P.S. We’ll anonymise every application we accept, so you don’t worry about removing your name before submitting (unless you want to). If you’ve got 5 or 6 successful ones sat on your hard drive right now, it’s an easy way to make some money.

FEATURED REPORT 📰

🕵️ Google's hit with a €2.95 billion EU fine

What’s going on here?

Last week, the EU’s competition regulator (the European Commission) hit Google with a €2.95 billion fine — the second-largest competition fine in EU history.

What led to the EU’s decision?

The European Commission began investigating Google in 2021 after receiving a complaint claiming Google was unfairly favouring its own advertising tools.

The Commission found that Google gave its own ad tech services (specifically AdX and DoubleClick) an advantage over rivals, making it harder for other ad tech companies to compete.

For example, its ad server let AdX users see and bid on ad space before competing services had the chance — giving Google users a head start in securing deals.

This potentially harmed publishers (who rely on ad revenue) and advertisers (who face higher costs) since their choices of ad tech services were effectively limited.

In short, Google used its position to dominate the market — a breach of EU competition rules.

Did the Commission see this as harmful to consumers?

Yes. The immediate impact was on publishers and advertisers — but the Commission found that Google’s conduct also hurt consumers.

Because publishers had fewer buyers and advertisers had fewer platforms to choose from, many were forced to rely on Google’s tools — even if they were more expensive.

Since advertising is a major business cost, the Commission’s conclusion was that these higher prices were passed on to consumers in the form of more expensive products and services.

So essentially, limited competition in ad tech → higher prices for advertising → increased prices for consumers.

Why was the fine so big?

This is the third time the Commission has found Google in breach of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — the rule that bans companies from abusing a dominant market position.

• 📆 In 2017, Google was fined €2.42 billion for promoting its own shopping comparison service in search results.

• 📆 In 2018, it was fined €4.34 billion again for forcing Android device makers to pre-install Google Search and Chrome in order to access the Play Store.

The Commission thought those earlier fines hadn’t been enough to change Google’s behaviour — so this time, it imposed another big penalty to act as a stronger deterrent.

What happens next?

⌛️ Google’s deadline: The tech giant now has 60 days to propose how it’s going to address the issue. If it doesn’t, the Commission may force it to sell parts of its ad tech business.

🛑 Appeal incoming: Google has confirmed it will appeal the decision. It says the ruling is wrong and warns that the proposed changes could hurt businesses in Europe that depend on its advertising services.

📋️ Follow the rules: Even with an appeal in progress, Google must stick to the Commission’s deadlines. If it fails to respond in time, further regulatory action could follow — regardless of the appeal outcome.

Which law firm represented Google?

Slaughter and May is reported to have advised Google in this case — but this isn’t confirmed.

What’s the big picture impact of this decision?

🗞️ US regulators on Google’s advertising: The EU isn’t acting alone. In the US, a federal judge recently ruled that Google had an illegal monopoly in online advertising — echoing the EU’s findings. The Department of Justice (which enforces federal law in the US) is now pushing for similar remedies: asking Google to sell off parts of its ad tech business, including AdX and DoubleClick for Publishers.

🔍 US regulators on Google’s search: Another US court ruling — this time on Google Search — echoed the EU’s approach. A judge ruled that Google kept an illegal monopoly in search by locking in Google search as the default on phones and browsers. But the judge didn’t ban Google from paying to be the default — he just stopped it from signing exclusive deals. That means rivals must get a fair chance too.

🇺🇸 🇪🇺 The big difference? Fines. Trump called the EU’s recent fine on Google as ‘very unfair’ and anti-American. US regulators agree Google’s ad tech behaviour is problematic too, but instead of heavy cash penalties, they’re going for structural action:

• breaking exclusive deals (e.g. stopping Google from locking in default spots so rivals get a fair chance),

• forcing divestitures (making Google sell off parts of its ad tech business),

• changing how Google operates (amending Google’s day-to-day rules so it doesn’t block competitors).

Both sides are targeting the same issues — but going about it in different ways.

How can you use this in your applications?

This case shows that regulators are becoming stricter and using different approaches. In the EU, Google faced one of the largest fines ever, designed to punish and deter misconduct. In the US, regulators are ordering structural changes, such as forcing Google to sell parts of its ad tech business, to prevent future harm.

For applications, the key point is that competition lawyers must guide clients through these changes. Global companies may face overlapping rules from several regulators at once.

Here are 3 points to take away:

1. Regulation isn’t local anymore: Clients can’t assume they’re safe from EU-style enforcement just because they operate in the US or Asia. For firms with international clients, this means lawyers must think globally. In applications, show you understand that cross-border regulation is now the norm, and lawyers need to help clients prepare for scrutiny in multiple jurisdictions at once.

2. Regulators are acting earlier and more forcefully: Across many sectors, regulators are stepping in sooner, reshaping how businesses operate, and not waiting for harm to pile up. In applications, highlight that lawyers aren’t only there to react to risks — they also play a proactive role in spotting issues early and guiding clients to avoid costly intervention.

3. Fines aren’t the only risk: Financial penalties still hurt, but the bigger danger is structural remedies — being forced to break up a business, change its model, or stop certain practices. In applications, stress that lawyers now need to advise on long-term business strategy, not just on defending clients against fines. This shows awareness of how legal advice connects directly to commercial survival.

IN OTHER NEWS 🗞

• 🇨🇭 Gibson Dunn has opened a new office in Zurich. The office is being led by Christopher Harris KC, a top barrister with over 20 years’ experience in investor-state and cross-border disputes. The move marks Gibson Dunn’s first step into Switzerland and adds to its growing European presence, following recent big hires in London and Brussels.

• 🛍️ Claire’s Accessories is in trouble after going bankrupt in the US and France and calling in administrators in the UK. Two buyers are now fighting to take over: Modella Capital (the investor behind WHSmith’s UK arm) and Douglas Putman, the owner of HMV. Any deal would cover 278 UK stores, 28 in Ireland, and about 2,150 jobs — though reports suggest only around 100 shops would likely survive. The battle for Claire’s comes as UK high streets continue to suffer from online shopping, rising taxes, and low footfall, with many well-known chains already gone or forced to shrink.

• 🎨 A new Banksy mural has appeared at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The image shows a judge in full robes striking a protester (with some blood splattering). Banksy confirmed the work on Instagram, but the court quickly covered it up and is now set to remove it. They say they need to preserve the listed building’s original character. Here’s what it looked like 👇️ 

  

AROUND THE WEB 🌐

• 🍴 Yum: Guess the food, its country of origin and grams of protein

• 🏋️ Strong: This tool makes custom workouts based on whatever equipment you have (even if you have nothing)

• 📸 Old school: A photography website that hasn’t been touched since 2001

STUFF THAT MIGHT HELP YOU 👌

• 📹️ Free application help: If you're applying to commercial law firms, check out my YouTube channel for actionable tips and an insight into the lifestyle of a commercial lawyer in London.