Regulatory Brief: French Antitrust Watchdog Dismisses Complaint Filed Against Microsoft
Executive Summary
In a significant development for the European digital search landscape, the French antitrust watchdog (Autorité de la concurrence) has officially dismissed a high-profile complaint filed against Microsoft by the French search engine Qwant. The decision, handed down in late November 2025, marks a critical victory for the US tech giant in a market increasingly scrutinized by European regulators. Qwant, which markets itself as a privacy-focused, sovereign European alternative to Google and Bing, had accused Microsoft of abusing its dominant position in the search syndication market.
The competition authority ruled that Qwant failed to provide "sufficiently persuasive evidence" to substantiate claims that Microsoft enforced restrictive exclusivity clauses or unfairly prioritized its own advertising services. Furthermore, the regulator rejected Qwant’s request for interim measures—emergency injunctions often sought to prevent immediate harm to a business while an investigation is ongoing. This regulatory decision reinforces the status quo of the "search syndication" economy, where Microsoft’s Bing serves as the backend infrastructure for numerous smaller search engines, including Ecosia, Lilo, and DuckDuckGo. While Microsoft welcomed the ruling as a validation of its partnership model, Qwant has signaled its intent to appeal, highlighting the ongoing friction between dependent European tech firms and the global platforms they rely upon.
Conceptual illustration of the French Autorité de la concurrence reviewing digital evidence regarding Microsoft, with a 'Dismissed' gavel in the foreground. High-tech legal theme
1. The Ruling: A Clear Dismissal
On Thursday, November 27, 2025, the Autorité de la concurrence delivered a conclusive verdict regarding the antitrust complaint lodged by Qwant. The dismissal was comprehensive: the regulator not only threw out the substantive complaint but also denied the request for urgent interim measures.
For a competition authority to grant interim measures, a complainant must typically demonstrate a "serious and immediate harm" to the sector, the consumer, or the complainant's business, alongside a strong prima facie case of anticompetitive behavior. The French regulator's refusal to grant these measures suggests that Qwant’s dossier lacked the necessary "smoking gun" to prove that Microsoft’s practices were actively strangling Qwant's ability to compete.
The authority specifically noted that the elements brought forward were not convincing enough to sustain the claims. This phrasing is pivotal—it implies that the investigation did not find a systemic attempt by Microsoft to foreclose the market, but rather a commercial relationship that, while perhaps strained, did not cross the line into illegal abuse of dominance under French or EU law.
2. The Complainant: Qwant’s Struggle for Sovereignty
To understand the gravity of this dismissal of complaint, one must understand Qwant’s unique, and somewhat precarious, position in the market. Founded with the ambitious goal of being the "French Google," Qwant built its brand on the promise of user privacy and European digital sovereignty. Unlike Google, Qwant does not track users or resell their data.
However, building a search index of the entire web is a monumental technical and financial challenge—one that only Google and Microsoft (Bing) have achieved at a global scale. For years, Qwant has operated in a hybrid model: it crawls some of the web itself but relies heavily on Microsoft Bing’s API to fill in the gaps for search results and to power its search advertising.
This dependency creates a complex dynamic. Qwant is simultaneously Microsoft’s customer (paying for Bing data) and its competitor (vying for French search users). The antitrust complaint was born from this friction. Qwant alleged that as it tried to pivot toward more independence—developing its own generative AI and indexing capabilities—Microsoft tightened the screws, using its leverage as the upstream supplier to hinder Qwant's downstream evolution.
3. Anatomy of the Complaint
The allegations brought by Qwant were threefold, centering on the mechanics of market competition in the search sector:
Exclusivity Restrictions: Qwant claimed that Microsoft imposed restrictive clauses in their syndication agreements. These clauses allegedly prevented Qwant from mixing Bing’s results with other data sources or its own technology, effectively locking Qwant into the Bing ecosystem and preventing product differentiation.
Ad Tech Favoritism: The complaint accused Microsoft of manipulating the digital advertising supply chain. Qwant argued that Microsoft prioritized its own interests when allocating search ads, thereby reducing Qwant’s monetization potential. In the thin-margin world of search, ad revenue is the oxygen that allows smaller players to invest in R&D.
Hindering AI Development: A more modern angle of the complaint involved Artificial Intelligence. Qwant argued that Microsoft’s restrictions hampered its ability to develop proprietary generative AI features. As search evolves from "ten blue links" to AI-driven answers (like ChatGPT or Bing Chat), access to raw data and the freedom to process it becomes an existential necessity for search engines.
By dismissing the case, the France competition regulator (Autorité de la concurrence) effectively stated that Qwant could not prove these restrictions were anticompetitive "abuses" rather than standard commercial terms protected under contract law.
4. The "Bing Economy" and Market Structure
This regulatory decision has implications far beyond Qwant. It validates the current structure of the alternative search market, often dubbed the "Bing Economy."
Microsoft is not just a consumer-facing search engine; it is a B2B infrastructure provider. It powers a constellation of "privacy-first" or "eco-friendly" search engines:
Ecosia: The German tree-planting search engine uses Bing data.
DuckDuckGo: The US privacy giant uses Bing for non-search related features and traditional links.
Lilo: Another French ethical search engine powered by Bing.
Yahoo: Even legacy giant Yahoo relies on Bing for some search technologies.
Microsoft’s defense likely hinged on this reality: it enables competition rather than destroying it. Without Bing’s syndication API, these alternative engines might not exist at all, leaving Google with an even cleaner monopoly (Google holds >90% of the search market in Europe, while Bing and its partners hold most of the remaining share).
Microsoft’s spokesperson highlighted this after the ruling, noting that they "remain dedicated to delivering high-quality search services while promoting innovation... in France and throughout Europe". The dismissal of complaint suggests the regulator agreed that Microsoft’s terms were not exclusionary to the point of illegality.
Data visualization concept showing the search syndication market structure, with Microsoft Bing as a central hub and smaller players like Qwant
5. Strategic Analysis: Why the Dismissal Matters
From a tech regulation standpoint, this outcome illustrates the high burden of proof required in antitrust cases, even in the stringent regulatory environment of the European Union.
For Microsoft:
This is a clean win. Following the scrutiny it faced regarding the bundling of Teams with Office (which led to a settlement and unbundling), Microsoft needed to demonstrate that its platform behavior is fair. This dismissal serves as a shield against similar complaints from other syndication partners. It affirms that being a dominant infrastructure provider does not automatically make strict contract terms illegal, provided they don't completely foreclose the market.
For Qwant:
The decision is a severe blow. Qwant has faced financial difficulties and management changes in recent years. Relying on the regulator to force better terms from Microsoft was likely a key part of its survival or growth strategy. Qwant’s CEO, Olivier Abecassis, stated they would "pursue all available legal avenues," implying an appeal to the Paris Court of Appeal or a complaint to the European Commission. However, appeals on factual assessments of "insufficient evidence" are notoriously difficult to win.
For the Market:
The ruling highlights a paradox in tech regulation: Regulators want to foster European sovereignty, but European "sovereigns" are often technically dependent on US giants. If the regulator had forced Microsoft to change its API terms, Microsoft might have simply raised prices or restricted access, potentially killing off the alternative engines the regulator sought to protect. The Autorité likely calculated that intervening in a functioning B2B market without overwhelming evidence of harm was too risky.
6. Future Outlook: The DMA and Beyond
While the French watchdog has stepped back, the specter of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) still looms. Microsoft is designated as a "gatekeeper" under the DMA for its Windows operating system and LinkedIn, but it largely escaped the designation for Bing (which has a smaller user base than Google Search).
However, the principles of the DMA—fair access, non-discrimination, and data portability—are bleeding into national case law. Qwant may try to reframe its arguments under broader EU compliance rules rather than just French competition law.
Additionally, this dismissal does not mean Microsoft is in the clear regarding all antitrust matters. The cloud infrastructure market (Azure) remains under heavy watch, despite the settlement with CISPE earlier in 2024. But for search syndication, the door has been firmly shut for now.
Conclusion
The decision by the French antitrust watchdog to dismiss Qwant’s antitrust complaint against Microsoft serves as a reality check for the European tech sector. It underscores that "market dominance" is not a crime in itself, and accusing a partner of "abuse" requires rigorous economic evidence that goes beyond unfavorable contract terms.
For Microsoft, it ensures the continuity of its syndication business model. For Qwant, it forces a return to the drawing board: the company must now find a way to innovate and become profitable within the constraints of its existing partnership, or find a new technological path that does not rely on the very giant it sought to sue. As the digital economy evolves, the Autorité de la concurrence remains a vigilant referee, but as this ruling proves, it is a referee that demands solid proof before blowing the whistle.
BB222222