Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Member Spotlight: Aon’s Litigation Risk Group

Aon is a global insurance brokerage and professional services firm with approximately 50,000 employees across 120 countries that offers a wide array of risk mitigation products and structured solutions.  Aon’s Litigation Risk Group focuses on de-risking adverse outcomes in active and potential future litigation for corporate, private equity, hedge fund, law firm, and litigation finance clients through the use of insurance.

Aon has spearheaded the rapid development of this insurance market over the past five years with pioneering solutions like judgment preservation insurance, insurance-backed judgment monetization, and portfolio-based “principal protection” coverage for funders and plaintiff-side law firms.  Aon’s Litigation Risk Group is the dominant market leader in the litigation and contingent risk space, having placed nearly $5 billion in total limits over just the last several years, including over $1 billion in limits in 2023 alone.

Website:  https://www.aon.com/m-and-a-transaction/transactionsolutions/litigationsolutions.jsp

Founded:  1982

HQ:  London (Global) and Chicago (US), with Aon’s Litigation Risk Group being based in New York

About Aon’s Litigation Risk Group:

Aon’s Litigation Risk Group works with a wide variety of clients across all industries and sectors of the economy, but the fastest-growing appetite for insurance solutions by far comes from litigation funders and other similar investors in litigation-related assets.

Aon helps these clients protect their downside in litigation-related investments in many different circumstances, whether protecting a judgment they have obtained in a case in which they invested at inception, wrapping a loan they are making to a plaintiff-side law firm with principal protection insurance, or insuring an entire portfolio of uncorrelated investments in cases at different stages of the litigation lifecycle.

Aon has fostered strong partnerships with dozens of insurance markets to bring our clients the most creative bespoke insurance solutions for the most complex litigation-related risks on the best possible coverage terms.  As the Director of Underwriting for a well-established litigation funder on whose behalf Aon has placed over $70 million in limits across a number of different investments put it:  “We have worked with the Aon’s Litigation Risk Group on a number of insurance policies over the years, and I can say unequivocally that they are second to none.  Besides being fantastic to work with, the team was also able to leverage their litigation know-how and strong relationships with insurers to obtain favorable terms for each of our policies.  Even when we had to file a claim on a policy, they jumped on it right away, handling it quickly and professionally without any need to involve a separate claims team.  We have been very happy with our partnership.” 

Points of Differentiation:

Innovation – Aon is a leader in terms of pushing the limits of what litigation and contingent risk insurance policies can do.  While this area of the insurance industry got its start on the defense side in the context of M&A transactions, where what is now refered to as “adverse judgment insurance” or “AJI” was used to ring-fence litigation risks that were getting in the way of an acquisition, they were the first to place insurance on plaintiff-side judgments, which led to Aon coining the term “judgment preservation insurance” or “JPI,” which is now used industry-wide and beyond.

Aon was also the first to have the insight that once a judgment is insured, so long as the defendant is sufficiently creditworthy, the combination of “judgment plus JPI policy” can serve as collateral for a loan that can be made on more attractive terms than would be available without insurance.  Aon was among the first broker in the insurance industry to facilitate loans against this combination of “judgment plus insurance,” a solution they named “insurance-backed judgment monetization,” and which has now also become widespread and provided a significant boost to the broader litigation and contingent risk insurance industry.  Their team prides itself on finding new and unique uses for insurance to help our clients achieve their goals, and excels at using insurance capital to solve complex litigation-related issues.

Pre-Underwriting­ – Aon’s team of former litigators has earned a reputation for submitting to insurers only the highest quality risks, after thoroughly analyzing their merits before submission to insurers.

As one of the leading insurers in the litigation and contingent risk insurance space, Ambridge Partners, put it:  “We’re always happy to receive contingent risk submissions from the Aon team.  The deals are always pre-vetted and well-presented, and it’s clear that they’ve asked themselves ‘What would I want to see as an underwriter?’ – and then provide exactly that.  It makes Aon’s deals very attractive easy for us to consider.”

And per Alston & Bird litigation partner Steve Penaro, “As outside counsel working with underwriters in the contingent risk space, when we see a contingent risk submission from Aon, we immediately know that is has been thoroughly vetted and the issues meticulously scrutinized.  And, once the underwriting process begins, Aon actively partners with us to ensure all relevant information is readily available and all questions have been answered allowing for a smooth close.  From the initial submission to the binding of the policy, Aon is there every step of the way.” 

Given the explosive growth in this space, Aon values their underwriters’ scarce time, and enjoys a competitive advantage knowing that underwriters move Aon submissions to the top of their piles.

Relationships with Insurers – Aon is not only a market leader in terms of litigation and contingent risk insurance, but also other lines of insurance written by the same carriers such as representations and warranties and tax insurance.

As one lawyer we have worked with on policies for two different clients put it: “The Aon team did a magnificent job in placing adverse judgment insurance for one of my clients and judgment protection insurance for another.  They have deep contacts with the insurance market, and it was apparent to me that insurers trust their expertise and judgment.  I have not hesitated to recommend them to other attorneys.”

Given the volume of business that Aon does in the broader transaction solutions insurance market, they maintain deep relationships with insurers, and that benefits their clients by helping them deliver the best possible coverage terms, pricing, and claims service.

Key Metrics:

Aon’s Litigation Risk Group has placed billions of dollars in limits on litigation and contingent risks in the last several years, including ten separate insurance programs that each provided more than $100 million in coverage limits and four that provided at least $500 million in coverage limits.

The policies placed by Aon have arisen in a variety of procedural contexts and run the gamut in terms of subject matter and types of claims – commercial litigation, breach of contract, patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and antitrust, just to name a few.  Aon has placed adverse judgment insurance on the defense side and judgment preservation insurance on the plaintiff side, including pre-trial, pre-judgment insurance for litigation funders to protect the value created by important evidentiary rulings that were the subject of interlocutory appeals.

Aon has also placed principal protection insurance on several hundred million dollars that have been invested into early stage, pre-complaint patent litigations across multiple unique patent families. They have procured insurance for defendants who have lost significant damages verdicts at trial against the risk that an appellate court will not reverse, and have insured against adverse outcomes related to regulatory processes.  Put simply, as long as their team has access to sufficient underwritable information about the litigation risk to be insured, there are few limits on the kinds of cases or procedural postures that Aon can insure.

Jurisdictions and Sectors Served:

Aon’s Litigation Risk Group has insurance broking teams not only in the United States, but also in the United Kingdom (which can insure risks across much of EMEA), Bermuda, and Southeast Asia, which enables them to deliver to our clients truly global solutions across myriad jurisdictions.

While the core of Aon’s business remains insuring the outcome of judicial proceedings in the United States, they understand where to go to find appetite to insure litigation in other domestic courts, as well as insuring the outcome of international arbitration proceedings. 

Key Stakeholders:

Stephen Davidson is a Managing Director and both the Head of Aon’s Litigation Risk Group and Head of Claims for Aon’s broader Transaction Solutions team.  As Head of the LRG, Stephen works with clients and insurance markets on the development of litigation and contingent risk insurance.  As Head of Claims, Stephen manages transaction liability claims – which includes not only litigation and contingent risk insurance claims but also representation and warranty and tax insurance claims – and has overseen and helped negotiate the favorable resolution of hundreds of such claims in North America and around the world.  Prior to joining Aon in 2016, Stephen was a commercial litigation partner in DLA Piper’s New York office, and he began his career at Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, where he worked as a litigation associate for several years.

Stephen Kyriacou is a Managing Director and Senior Lawyer in Aon’s Litigation Risk Group, and was the first insurance industry hire dedicated solely to the litigation and contingent risk insurance market, which he has been working to develop and grow since 2019.  Stephen has twice received the designation of “Power Broker” from Risk & Insurance Magazine (in 2022 and 2023), which called him “a pioneer in judgment preservation insurance,” and is the only litigation and contingent risk insurance broker to have been so recognized.  While Stephen places insurance across all of Aon’s solution lines, he specializes in single-case judgment preservation insurance and adverse judgment insurance placements.  Prior to joining Aon, Stephen spent close to a decade as a complex commercial litigator at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, where he amassed significant trial, appellate, and arbitration experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in the U.S. and abroad across a wide array of practice areas, and clerked in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Ed Conlon is a Managing Director in Aon’s Litigation Risk Group, and is the team’s resident insurance industry veteran, having been in the industry for over 15 years and having placed litigation and contingent risk insurance since 2015, when the market for such insurance was still in its embryonic stages.  While Ed brokes across all of Aon’s litigation and contingent insurance lines, he focuses primarily on developing cutting edge bespoke portfolio-based coverage structures for law firms, litigation funders, and other investors in litigation.  Ed also leverages his deep, battle-tested relationships across the broader insurance industry to bring new carriers into the growing litigation and contingent risk insurance market and to maximize limits and optimize coverage terms on Aon policies.  Prior to his current role, Ed led Aon’s Financial Institutions Group and, before that, was a complex commercial litigator and ran a complex commercial claims desk at AIG.

David Hodges is a Vice President and joined Aon’s Litigation Risk Group in 2021.   David brokes across all of Aon’s litigation and contingent insurance lines, and focuses primarily on single-case judgment preservation and adverse judgment insurance placements.  Prior to joining Aon, David was a complex commercial litigator at Boies, Schiller & Flexner and Lankler Siffert & Wohl, and was also a law clerk for federal judges on the Second Circuit and D.C. District Court.

Bill Baker is a Managing Director in Aon’s Litigation Risk Group and joined the team in early 2020.  Bill leads the team’s work on structured solutions, including loans that are collateralized by judgment preservation insurance policies and other financing solutions that are customized to meet the unique capital needs of our clients.  Prior to joining Aon, Bill was an investment banker at various firms throughout a 15-year career, after which time he worked in private equity and corporate roles, including strategy, corporate development, and investor relations.

Mike Kenny is a Director in Aon’s Litigation Risk Group and joined the team in 2021.  Mike is responsible for the team’s structured finance solutions, including premium finance and judgment monetization.  Mike works with clients to structure bespoke credit transactions, allowing them to leverage the combination of their judgments and insurance to access the capital markets and obtain liquidity.  Mike uses his industry relationships and a broad network of investors to help clients find the best deal terms and structure for their specific needs.  Mike is also a licensed investment banker with Aon Securities.  Prior to joining Aon, Mike was an investment banker at BTIG, where he focused on M&A, public and private financing, and strategic advisory for software industry clients.

 

Commercial

View All
Commercial People Moves

Therium Cuts UK Jobs as Part of Strategic Reorganisation

By Harry Moran |

Recent years have been described as a time of substantial growth and expansion in the global litigation funding market, yet new reporting suggests that one of the industry’s most well-known funders is downsizing its workforce.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides a brief insight into ongoing changes being made at litigation funder Therium, reporting that the company is undertaking a number of layoffs as part of plans to restructure the business. The article states that these job cuts have been made to Therium’s UK workforce, with the business claiming the cuts are motivated by strategic reorganisation rather than financial pressures. 

There are no details currently available as to which employees have been let go, with Therium having removed the ‘Our People’ section of its website. The Gazette also discovered the incorporation of a new company called Therium Capital Advisors LLP on 15 April 2025, through a review of Companies House records. The new entity’s records list Therium’s chief investment officer, Neil Purslow, and investment manager, Harry Stockdale, as its two designated members. 

Companies House records also show that Therium filed a ‘termination of appointment of secretary’ for Martin Middleton on 19 March 2025. Mr Middleton’s LinkedIn profile currently lists his position as Therium’s chief financial officer, having first joined the funder as a financial controller over 15 years ago.

At the time of reporting, Therium has not responded to LFJ’s request for comment.

Commercial Special Features

Litigation Funding in GCC Arbitration

By Obaid Mes’har |

The following piece was contributed by Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har, Managing Director of WinJustice.

Introduction

A Practical Overview

Third-party litigation funding (TPF)—where an external financier covers a claimant’s legal fees in exchange for a share of any resulting award—has gained significant traction in arbitration proceedings across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Historically, TPF was not widely used in the Middle East, but recent years have seen a notable increase in its adoption, particularly in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The economic pressures introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the high costs of complex arbitrations, have prompted many parties to view TPF as an effective risk-management strategy. Meanwhile, the entry of global funders and evolving regulatory frameworks highlight TPF’s emergence as a key feature of the GCC arbitration landscape.

Growing Adoption

Although the initial uptake was gradual, TPF is now frequently employed in high-value disputes across the GCC. Observers in the UAE have noted a discernible rise in funded cases following recent legal developments in various jurisdictions. Major international funders have established a presence in the region, reflecting the growing acceptance and practical utility of TPF. Similar growth patterns are evident in other GCC countries, where businesses have become increasingly aware of the advantages offered by third-party financing.

By providing claimants with the financial resources to pursue meritorious claims, third-party funding is reshaping the dispute-resolution landscape. As regulatory frameworks evolve and more funders enter the market, it is anticipated that TPF will continue to gain prominence, offering both claimants and legal professionals an alternative means of managing arbitration costs and mitigating financial risk.

Types of Cases

Funders are chiefly drawn to large commercial and international arbitration claims with significant damages at stake. The construction sector has been a key source of demand in the Middle East, where delayed payments and cost overruns lead to disputes; contractors facing cash-flow strain are increasingly turning to third-party funding to pursue their claims. High-stakes investor–state arbitrations are also candidates – for instance, in investment treaty cases where a government’s alleged expropriation deprives an investor of its main asset, funding can enable the claim to move forward . In practice, arbitration in GCC hubs like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and others is seeing more funded claimants, leveling the field between smaller companies and deep-pocketed opponents.

Practical Utilization

Law firms in the region are adapting by partnering with funders or facilitating introductions for their clients. Many firms report that funding is now considered for cases that clients might otherwise abandon due to cost. While precise data on usage is scarce (as most arbitrations are confidential), anecdotal evidence and market activity indicate that third-party funding, once rare, is becoming a common feature of significant arbitration proceedings in the GCC. This trend is expected to continue as awareness grows and funding proves its value in enabling access to justice.

Regulatory Landscape and Restrictions on Third-Party Funding

UAE – Onshore vs. Offshore

The United Arab Emirates illustrates the region’s mixed regulatory landscape. Onshore (civil law) UAE has no specific legislation prohibiting or governing litigation funding agreements . Such agreements are generally permissible, but they must not conflict with Sharia principles – for example, funding arrangements should avoid elements of excessive uncertainty (gharar) or speculation . Parties entering funding deals for onshore cases are cautioned to structure them carefully in line with UAE law and good faith obligations. In contrast, the UAE’s common-law jurisdictions – the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) – explicitly allow third-party funding and have established clear frameworks.

The DIFC Courts issued Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017, requiring any funded party to give notice of the funding and disclose the funder’s identity to all other parties . The DIFC rules also clarify that while the funding agreement itself need not be disclosed, the court may consider the existence of funding when deciding on security for costs applications and retains power to order costs against a funder in appropriate cases. Similarly, the ADGM’s regulations (Article 225 of its 2015 Regulations) and Litigation Funding Rules 2019 set out requirements for valid funding agreements – they must be in writing, the funded party must notify other parties and the court of the funding, and the court can factor in the funding arrangement when issuing cost orders . The ADGM rules also impose criteria on funders (e.g. capital adequacy) and safeguard the funded party’s control over the case .

In sum, the UAE’s offshore jurisdictions provide a modern, regulated environment for third-party funding, whereas onshore UAE allows it in principle but without detailed regulation.

Other GCC Countries

Elsewhere in the GCC, explicit legislation on litigation funding in arbitration remains limited, but recent developments signal growing acceptance. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait do not yet have dedicated statutes or regulations on third-party funding . However, leading arbitral institutions in these countries have proactively addressed funding in their rules. Notably, the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) updated its Arbitration Rules in 2023 to acknowledge third-party funding: Article 17(6) now mandates that any party with external funding disclose the existence of that funding and the funder’s identity to the SCCA, the tribunal, and other parties . This ensures transparency and allows arbitrators to check for conflicts. 

Likewise, the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution (BCDR) included provisions in its 2022 Arbitration Rules requiring a party to notify the institution of any funding arrangement and the funder’s name,, which the BCDR will communicate to the tribunal and opponents . The BCDR Rules further oblige consideration of whether any relationship between the arbitrators and the funder could compromise the tribunal’s independence. These rule changes in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain align with international best practices and indicate regional momentum toward formal recognition of third-party funding in arbitration.

Disclosure and Transparency

A common thread in the GCC regulatory approach is disclosure. Whether under institutional rules (as in DIAC, SCCA, BCDR) or court practice directions (DIFC, ADGM), funded parties are generally required to disclose that they are funded and often to reveal the funder’s identity . For instance, the new DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022 expressly recognize third-party funding – Article 22 obliges any party who enters a funding arrangement to promptly inform all other parties and the tribunal, including identifying the funder. DIAC’s rules even prohibit entering a funding deal after the tribunal is constituted if it would create a conflict of interest with an arbitrator. This emphasis on transparency aims to prevent ethical issues and later challenges to awards. It also reflects the influence of global standards (e.g. 2021 ICC Rules and 2022 ICSID Rules) which likewise introduced funding disclosure requirements.

Overall, while no GCC jurisdiction outright bans third-party funding, the patchwork of court practices and arbitration rules means parties must be mindful of the specific disclosure and procedural requirements in the seat of arbitration or administering institution. In jurisdictions rooted in Islamic law (like Saudi Arabia), there is an added layer of ensuring the funding arrangement is structured in a Sharia-compliant way (avoiding interest-based returns and excessive uncertainty. We may see further regulatory development – indeed, regional policymakers are aware of litigation funding’s growth and are considering more formal regulation to provide clarity and confidence for all participants .

The GCC region has seen several important developments and trends related to third-party funding in arbitration:

  • Institutional Rule Reforms: As detailed earlier, a number of arbitral institutions in the GCC have updated their rules to address third-party funding, marking a significant trend. The Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) 2022 Rules, the Saudi SCCA 2023 Rules, and the Bahrain BCDR 2022 Rules all include new provisions on funding disclosures. This wave of reforms in 2022–2023 reflects a recognition that funded cases are happening and need basic ground rules. By explicitly referencing TPF, these institutions legitimize the practice and provide guidance to arbitrators and parties on handling it (primarily through mandatory disclosure and conflict checks). The adoption of such rules brings GCC institutions in line with leading international forums (like ICC, HKIAC, ICSID, etc. that have also moved to regulate TPF).
  • DIFC Court Precedents: The DIFC was one of the first in the region to grapple with litigation funding. A few high-profile cases in the DIFC Courts in the mid-2010s involved funded claimants, which prompted the DIFC Courts to issue Practice Direction 2/2017 as a framework. This made the DIFC one of the pioneers in the Middle East to formally accommodate TPF. Since then, the DIFC Courts have continued to handle cases with funding, and their decisions (for example, regarding cost orders against funders) are building a body of regional precedent on the issue. While most of these cases are not public, practitioners note that several DIFC proceedings have featured litigation funding, establishing practical know-how in dealing with funded parties. The DIFC experience has likely influenced other GCC forums to be more accepting of TPF.
  • Funders’ Increased Presence: Another trend is the growing confidence of international funders in the Middle East market. Over the last couple of years, top global litigation financiers have either opened offices in the GCC or actively started seeking cases from the region. Dubai has emerged as a regional hub – beyond Burford, other major funders like Omni Bridgeway (a global funder with roots in Australia) and IMF Bentham (now Omni) have been marketing in the GCC, and local players or boutique funders are also entering the fray . This increased competition among funders is good news for claimants, as it can lead to more competitive pricing and terms for funding. It also indicates that funders perceive the GCC as a growth market with plenty of high-value disputes and a legal environment increasingly open to their business.
  • Types of Arbitrations Being Funded : In terms of case trends, funded arbitrations in the GCC have often involved big-ticket commercial disputes – for example, multi-million dollar construction, energy, and infrastructure cases. These are sectors where disputes are frequent and claims sizable, but claimants (contractors, subcontractors, minority JV partners, etc.) may have limited cash after a project soured. Third-party funding has started to play a role in enabling such parties to bring claims. There have also been instances of investor-state arbitrations involving GCC states or investors that utilized funding (though specific details are usually confidential). The Norton Rose Fulbright report notes that funding is especially helpful in investor-treaty cases where an investor’s primary asset was taken by the state, leaving them dependent on external financing to pursue legal remedies.

As GCC countries continue to attract foreign investment and enter into international treaties, one can expect more ICSID or UNCITRAL arbitrations connected to the region – and many of those claimants may turn to funders, as is now common in investment arbitration globally.

  • Emerging Sharia-Compliant Funding Solutions: A unique trend on the horizon is the development of funding models that align with Islamic finance principles. Given the importance of Sharia law in several GCC jurisdictions, some industry experts predict the rise of Sharia-compliant litigation funding products. These might structure the funder’s return as a success fee in the form of profit-sharing or an award-based service fee rather than “interest” on a loan, and ensure that the arrangement avoids undue uncertainty. While still nascent, such innovations could open the door for greater use of funding in markets like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, by removing religious/legal hesitations. They would be a notable evolution, marrying the concept of TPF with Islamic finance principles – a blend particularly suitable for the Gulf.

Overall, the trajectory in the GCC arbitration market is clear: third-party funding is becoming mainstream. There have not been many publicly reported court challenges or controversies around TPF in the region – which suggests that, so far, its integration has been relatively smooth. On the contrary, the changes in arbitration rules and the influx of funders point to a growing normalization. Businesses and law firms operating in the GCC should take note of these trends, as they indicate that funding is an available option that can significantly impact how disputes are fought and financed.

Conclusion

Litigation funding in the GCC’s arbitration arena has evolved from a novelty to a practical option that businesses and law firms ignore at their peril. With major arbitration centers in the region embracing third-party funding and more funders entering the Middle Eastern market, this trend is likely to continue its upward trajectory. 

For businesses, it offers a chance to enforce rights and recover sums that might otherwise be forgone due to cost constraints. For law firms, it presents opportunities to serve clients in new ways and share in the upside of successful claims. Yet, as with any powerful tool, it must be used wisely: parties should stay mindful of the legal landscape, comply with disclosure rules, and carefully manage relationships to avoid ethical snags. 

By leveraging litigation funding strategically – balancing financial savvy with sound legal practice – stakeholders in the GCC can optimize their dispute outcomes while effectively managing risk and expenditure. In a region witnessing rapid development of its dispute resolution mechanisms, third-party funding stands out as an innovation that, when properly harnessed, aligns commercial realities with the pursuit of justice.

At WinJustice.com, we take pride in being the UAE’s pioneering litigation funding firm. We are dedicated to providing innovative funding solutions that enable our clients to overcome financial hurdles and pursue justice without compromise. By leveraging third-party litigation funding strategically—balancing financial acumen with sound legal practices—stakeholders in the GCC can optimize their dispute outcomes while effectively managing risk and expenditure.

If you are looking to maximize your dispute resolution strategy through expert litigation funding, contact WinJustice.com today. We’re here to help you navigate the evolving landscape and secure the justice you deserve.

Case Developments Commercial

European Commission Fines Apple €500m and Meta €200m for DMA Breaches

By Harry Moran |

Antitrust and competition claims brought against large multinational corporations often represent lucrative opportunities for litigation funders, and the announcement of a new series of fines being imposed on two of the world’s largest technology companies could set the stage for more of these claims being brought in Europe.

Reporting by Reuters covers a major antitrust development as the European Commission has handed down multimillion dollar fines to both Apple and Meta over their breaches of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). These fines follow non-compliance investigations that began in March 2024, with Apple receiving a €500 million fine for breaching its anti-steering obligation through the App Store, and Meta being fined €200 million for breaching the DMA obligation to allow consumers the option to choose a service that uses less of their personal data.

Teresa Ribera, Executive Vice-President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition at the European Commission, said that the fines “send a strong and clear message”, and that the enforcement action should act as a reminder that “all companies operating in the EU must follow our laws and respect European values.”

In a post on LinkedIn, Gabriela Merino, case manager at LitFin, explained that these fines “mark the first non-compliance decisions issued by the Commission under the new regulatory framework.” As LFJ covered earlier this month, LitFin is funding a €900 million claim against Google in the Netherlands over its anti-competitive practices that were first brought to light by another European Commission investigation. Merino said that “these latest rulings are a welcome boost” to LitFin’s own case.

Statements from both Apple and Meta decried the fines, with the former arguing that the decision was “yet another example of the European Commission unfairly targeting Apple”. 

The full press release from the European Commission detailing the investigations and associated fines can be read here.