Old news: The European Union has imposed a fine of €376.36 million on Intel for antitrust violations over several decades once again.

Veteran tech watchers might remember that the chipmaker received a much higher fine, over a billion euros, from the EU back in 2009 after the commission had determined that Intel had abused its dominance in the chip market by excluding rival AMD by paying PC manufacturers and retailers not to sell or delay sales or cancel products containing chips from AMD.

The massive fine set off years of legal appeals. Some of which remain ongoing (yes, in the Year of Our Lord 2023). But one component of which is no longer being appealed by Intel, hence the EU reimposing a (substantially less massive) fine for that particular portion.

Today's ruling is the latest development after a decision last year by the EU's General Court — which, after a 2017 decision by the bloc's top court sent the case back to the lower court to review — annulled part of the Commission's ruling from the start concerning so-called "conditional rebates" (aka, its allegations Intel gave whole or partial rebates to PC makers conditional upon a stipulation that all/nearly all their x86 CPUs must be procured from Intel); but upheld the illegality of Intel's "naked restrictions" (aka, paying PC makers to delay or withhold the launch of certain products that contain rival x86 CPUs and restrict the number of sales channels for these products).

The General Court, however, annulled the entire amount of the fine the Commission had imposed in 2009 as it was impossible to determine the amount of the penalty applying only to naked restrictions. And so we arrive at today's €376.36M (~$400M) sting — which, per the Commission, reflects the "naked restrictions" EU judges have confirmed that Intel unlawfully applied.

What specifically is the Commission fining Intel for now? Here is the Commission's breakdown:

Between November 2002 and May 2005, Intel conditioned payments on HP selling business desktops based on the x86 CPUs of its competitor AMD to only: (i) small- and medium-sized enterprises; (ii) through direct distribution channels-and not through distributors; and (iii) after having HP postpone its European release of the first business desktop based on AMD CPUs by 6 months.
Intel made payments to Acer conditional upon Acer delaying the launch of an AMD-based notebook by three months to January 2004 from September 2003
Intel made payments to Lenovo conditional upon Lenovo delaying the launch of AMD-based notebooks by six months from June 2006 till the end of 2006
In consequence of those restrictions, computer manufacturers stopped, delayed or curbed the selling of products that depended on a competitor's chipsets for which they had positively designed and for which there was consumer demand. Intel's naked restrictions therefore had anticompetitive effects in the market as it denied customers a choice they would otherwise have had," adds the Commission.

According to the Commission, the downsizing reflects the "narrower scope of the infringement" compared with that decision, and the amount of fine to be reimposed on Intel is based on the same parameters as the 2009 decision.

The EU is still appealing the General Court's other finding last year that the Commission's assessment of Intel's conditional rebates was incomplete and the decision did not sufficiently demonstrate the rebates had the capability of restricting competition. So it hasn't given up on the possibility of clawing back more of the earlier fine amount. But that appeal remains pending.

The Q&A compiled by the Commission on the latest case development includes the following question: "Why is it imposing a fine for an infringement that 'might have had a limited impact in the European Economic Area (EEA) and 15 years after the infringement came to an end'?

"The Court of Justice has confirmed that the infringement was a serious breach of EU competition rules, having significant effects in the EEA (C-413/14 P). The Commission is committed to enforcing EU competition rules and ensuring that such anticompetitive practices do not remain unsanctioned," it responds on that.
Interest payments fight
The memo also claims that the Commission paid Intel "the full fine 'provisionally paid' and 'applicable interest'" last year. Again, this is one of the parts of the drama subject to litigation.

This comes after the bloc's top court ruled in 2021 that the Commission would have to pay default interest on refunded fines in antitrust cases which were annulled, at the rate applied by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations plus 3.5 percentage points.

This summer Intel filed a claim before the General Court for €593 million in interest from the EU, which it alleged had refused to reimburse default interest on the annulled sanction. Those proceedings were, however, stayed pending a final decision from the EU's Court of Justice on Commission appeals in two cases currently before the CJEU.

Last year the EU's executive also adopted a proposal for a targeted amendment of the bloc's Financial Regulation which includes a proposal that fines provisionally paid and later annulled or reduced by the CJEU should be reimbursed with an interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations increased by 1.5 percentage points.
Intel antitrust decision sent for review by Europe's top court