London, December 23, 2025 — The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal has struck out parts of Foundem’s amended claim seeking damages against Google for alleged conduct involving “Product OneBoxes” between 2006 and December 2007, ruling that the allegations amounted to a new, time-barred claim that could not be added to the proceedings.
The case is part of the wider “UK Shopping Proceedings,” a set of damages actions brought by comparison shopping service operators following the European Commission’s 2017 Google Shopping decision. The Commission decision found Google abused its dominant position by more favorably positioning and displaying its own comparison shopping service in general search results, with the UK infringement period starting in January 2008.
Foundem has pursued damages both for the infringement period covered by the Commission decision and for the period after the decision, alleging the conduct continued despite Google’s remedy. Foundem also sought to extend its allegations back to June 2006 — January 2008 by arguing that, before “Product Universal” launched, Google used “Product OneBoxes” to prominently display its own comparison shopping results while rivals were subject to search demotions.
Key Findings
Google applied to strike out the OneBox allegations on the basis that they were a new claim for limitation purposes and did not arise from the same or substantially the same facts as the earlier pleaded case.
The tribunal agreed, finding the OneBox allegations constituted a new cause of action introduced for the first time in Foundem’s November 2024 amended pleading. It also concluded the new claim did not arise out of substantially the same facts already in issue, meaning the tribunal had no power to allow the amendment after the relevant limitation period had expired.
The tribunal said Foundem’s existing pre-2008 case was framed around alleged algorithmic demotions — including “Algorithm A” — applied to Foundem but not to Google’s own service. By contrast, the OneBox allegations added a separate factual and evidentiary inquiry focused on a different mechanism for promoting Google’s service in search results during an earlier period.
The tribunal granted Google’s application and struck out the relevant parts of the latest pleading, including the paragraphs setting out the OneBox allegations and related amendments.
The case is 1589/5/7/23 (T) Infederation Limited (Foundem) v Google before the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
