Brussels: (Business Emerge Report): The European Union’s General Court has maintained a finding that Intel engaged in market-restricting practices in the early 2000s, while issuing a reduced monetary penalty in its latest judgment released on Wednesday. The ruling concludes a key phase in the long-running case involving the chipmaker’s conduct toward computer manufacturers.
The judgment was delivered in Luxembourg, where the court reviewed Intel’s challenge to a previous European Commission decision. The case concerns commercial arrangements the company had with several computer makers between 2002 and 2006. These arrangements were examined to determine whether they hindered competing chip suppliers.
The court recalculated the financial consequence of the violation, decreasing the fine from €376 million to €237 million. Judges said the revised amount reflects the duration of the conduct and the scale of the products involved. Their findings noted that only a segment of the market was affected by the restrictions and that there were intervals during which no questionable practices occurred.
The matter began when regulators investigated payments Intel provided to HP, Acer and Lenovo during the four-year period. Authorities said the arrangements discouraged or slowed the release of devices powered by competing processors. Such practices, described by regulators as naked restrictions, were the focus of the Commission’s 2023 decision after an earlier, larger penalty from 2009 was annulled in part.
The ruling is significant for the semiconductor sector, which continues to face intense competition among global manufacturers. Market analysts observe that legal outcomes of this nature may influence how large chipmakers structure commercial contracts with device makers, especially in markets where regulatory scrutiny is high.
Both Intel and the Commission retain the right to seek further review before the Court of Justice, which is the final authority on EU legal matters. Any appeal would be limited to questions of law and not a reassessment of the facts. The ongoing legal pathway means that the outcome may still evolve depending on whether either side decides to proceed with an appeal.
