Intel has lost its challenge against a record €1.06bn (£850m) fine handed down five years ago by the EU’s competition authorities.
Judges at the Luxembourg-based General Court, Europe’s second highest, said today that they backed the European Commission's decision and said the EU watchdog had not been heavy-handed with the level of the fine, equal to 4.15 per cent of Intel's 2008 turnover, versus a possible maximum of 10 per cent.
In its 2009 decision the Commission said Intel tried to thwart rival Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) by giving rebates to PC makers Dell, Hewlett-Packard, NEC and Lenovo for buying most of their computer chips from Intel as well as paying German retail chain Media Saturn Holding to stock only computers with its chips.
"The Commission demonstrated to the requisite legal standard that Intel attempted to conceal the anti-competitive nature of its practices and implemented a long term comprehensive strategy to foreclose AMD from the strategically most important sales channels," the court said in a near 300-page decision.
"The General Court considers that none of the arguments raised by Intel supports the conclusion that the fine imposed is disproportionate. On the contrary, it must be considered that that fine is appropriate in the light of the facts of the case."
Intel, which can take its case further to the Court of Justice of the European Union but only on points of law, declined to say whether it would do so.
"We are very disappointed about the decision. It's a complex case which is reflected in the decision. We will begin evaluating the decision," Intel spokeswoman Sophie Jacobs said.
The Commission welcomed the ruling, as did consumers' lobbying group BEUC.
"When large companies abuse their dominance of the market, it causes direct harm to consumers. The court's ruling issued a strong reminder that such behaviour is illegal and unacceptable," said BEUC director-general Monique Goyens.
The court's judgement suggests companies would be better off settling antitrust charges instead of fighting them, said Martina Maier, a partner at law firm McDermott Will & Emery.
"Companies under investigation by the Commission should not count on winning in court with the argument that the Commission would not have properly assessed the economic effects of an abuse of dominance," she said.
"This might well lead to a supplementary incentive for a company under investigation for an alleged abuse of dominance to settle with the Commission or to offer commitments in order to motivate the Commission to end its investigation."