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
The Philippine Criminology Profession Act of 2018
This document outlines the Philippine Criminology Profession Act of 2018, detailing the regulation and supervision of criminology practice and requirements for licensure and professional development in the field.
PDF
Obligations
This document provides a detailed exploration of the concept of obligations in a legal context, defining various types of obligations, their requisites, and the remedies available for breaches.
PDF
Obligations: General Provisions
This document outlines the general provisions of obligations as defined in legal terms, detailing the nature, sources, and effects of obligations in law. It covers various types of obligations, the requisites for their existence, and the implications of non-compliance.
PDF
General Provisions on Obligations
This document provides a comprehensive overview of obligations under the law, detailing definitions, sources, kinds, rights, and remedies associated with obligations in a legal context.
PDF
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT (AMLA)
The document outlines the provisions and framework of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), detailing the stages of money laundering, regulatory obligations, and the functions of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).