Google LLC, Alphabet Inc. v European Commission

100%

Google LLC, Alphabet Inc. v European Commission

Appeal - Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Smart mobile devices - Decision finding an infringement of Article one hundred two TFEU and Article fifty-four of the EEA Agreement - Google Android operating system - Contractual restrictions - Tying of the search and browser applications Google Search and Chrome with the app store Play Store - Anti-fragmentation obligations - Exclusivity payments - Exclusionary effects - Hypothetically as-efficient competitor - Objective justification - Single and continuous infringement - Recalculation of the fine

I. Introduction

II. Background to the dispute

A. Facts

C. Procedure before the General Court and the judgment under appeal

Two. The judgement under appeal

IV. Assessment

One. The assessment of the MADAs (first and second grounds of appeal)

(one) Taking into account the RSAs when analysing the MADAs (first part of the first ground of appeal)

(i) No new assessment of the facts on appeal

(ii) Findings of the General Court regarding the MADAs' exclusionary effects

- The possibility for OEMs to pre-install competing search services and to set them as default

- Connection between usage shares and pre-installation

(iii) Assessment

(three) The tying of Chrome with the Play Store and Google Search

Two. The assessment of the AFAs (third and fourth grounds of appeal)

(one) The establishment of the contested conduct in relation to the AFAs (first part of the third ground of appeal)

(b) The justification of the AFAs (fourth ground of appeal)

Three. The single and continuous infringement (fifth ground of appeal)

B. The fine (sixth ground of appeal)

V. Costs

II. Background to the dispute

A. Facts

Fourteen.

B. The decision at issue

C. Procedure before the General Court and the judgment under appeal

Two. The judgement under appeal

III. Procedure before the Court of Justice and forms of order sought

IV. Assessment

A. The finding of the infringement (first to fifth grounds of appeal)

One. The assessment of the MADAs (first and second grounds of appeal)

one. Taking into account the RSAs when analysing the MADAs (first part of the first ground of appeal)

One I. No new assessment of the facts on appeal

Two. No assessment of the effects of a practice isolated from its context

One. Starting point of the case-law on tying

Two. Findings of the General Court regarding the MADAs' exclusionary effects

Creation of a 'status quo bias' by way of pre-installation

Means of reaching users other than pre-installation

Connection between usage shares and pre-installation

Taking account of the context

Three. Assessment

Two. The tying of the Google Search app and the Play Store

Three. The tying of Chrome with the Play Store and Google Search

C. Conclusion on the assessment of the MADAs

Two. The assessment of the AFAs (third and fourth grounds of appeal)

A. The scope of the abuse in relation to the AFAs and its effects (third ground of appeal)

One. The establishment of the contested conduct in relation to the AFAs (first part of the third ground of appeal)

Two. The attribution of the alleged exclusionary effects (second part of the third ground of appeal)

(b) The justification of the AFAs (fourth ground of appeal)

(c) Conclusion on the assessment of the AFAs

Three. The single and continuous infringement (fifth ground of appeal)

Four. Conclusion on the establishment of the infringement

B. The fine (sixth ground of appeal)

C. V. Costs

VI. Conclusion

Overview

Advocate General Kokott's opinion discusses the legality of Google's practices under EU competition law, focusing on alleged abuses of a dominant market position related to contractual agreements governing the distribution of the Google Android operating system and associated applications.

Key Points

1The document addresses allegations of Google abusing its dominant position in the market for smart mobile device operating systems
2It examines various contractual agreements that Google imposed on manufacturers, which may infringe on competition laws
3The opinion outlines the criteria for assessing whether Google's behavior negatively impacts competition, particularly regarding as-efficient competitors
4It includes a discussion of the implications of pre-installation requirements for Google services on OEMs and the broader market.

Details

Category: Law and Legal Studies

PDF
Joevanie Arellano Tabasa vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, and Wilson Soluren
This document is a decision regarding the petition of Joevanie Arellano Tabasa, challenging his summary deportation by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation after losing his U.S. citizenship and claiming his right to repatriation to the Philippines.
PDF
PCC Guidelines on Merger Remedies
These guidelines outline the Philippine Competition Commission's approach to assessing remedies for mergers and acquisitions that may substantially prevent, restrict, or lessen competition, explaining key principles, types of remedies, considerations for design, and the remedies process.
PDF
In the Matter of the Proposed Acquisition by Universal Robina Corporation of Assets of Central Azucarera Don Pedro, Inc. and Roxas Holdings, Inc.
This document is a decision issued by the Philippine Competition Commission regarding the proposed acquisition by Universal Robina Corporation of the assets of Central Azucarera Don Pedro, Inc. and Roxas Holdings, Inc., assessing the transaction's potential impact on competition in the relevant market.
PDF
In the Matter of the Proposed Acquisition by International Container Terminal Services, Inc. of Shares in the Manila North Harbour Port, Inc.
This document presents the Philippine Competition Commission's decision regarding the acquisition of shares in Manila North Harbour Port, Inc. by International Container Terminal Services, Inc., analyzing the competitive effects and market implications of the proposed transaction.
PDF
Manfredi and Others Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) 13 July 2006
This document presents the judgment of the Court regarding preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of Article 81 EC in relation to insurance companies involved in unlawful agreements affecting civil liability auto insurance premiums.