"Abuse of dominant position"Google must pay 4.3 billion to the EU

The Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed thefine of approx 4.1 billion euros at the expense of Google. The judges rejected the challenge brought by Google and its parent company Alphabet against the sanction imposed for abuse of dominant position of the search engine Google Searchwithin the operating system Android.

In the 2018the European Commission had concluded that Google he had abused his dominant position imposing, with agreements of pre-installation and license conditions of certain applications, the precedence of its search engine Google Search and your browser Chrome on mobile devices running the operating system Androidalso proposed by Google.

The decision of the European Court

The Court he then noted asingle and continuous infringement in which all these behaviors fell and inflicted on Google and’overall fine you seem to 4.3 billion eurosof which 1,9 placed jointly and severally at the expense of Alphabet.

The role of the EU Court

Il Court of the European Union had confirmed the qualification as single and continuous infringementhowever annulling part of the decision of Commission relating to the behavior consisting in making the conclusion of agreements conditional revenue sharing with certain original equipment manufacturers and mobile network operators to exclusive pre-installation Of Google Search on a predefined portfolio of devices. The Court had therefore re-evaluated the sanction and set thefine you seem to 4.1 billion per Googleof which 1,5 at the expense of Alphabet by virtue of his joint liability.

The reasons for the sentence

According to today’s ruling of Courtil Court could take the whole into account economic context relevant, including agreements revenue sharingwithout it being necessary to systematically carry out acounterfactual analysis to ascertain ainfringement to the prohibition of abuse of dominant position.

Bias and user preferences

The Court also confirms that the Court could establish the existence of a “I am biased against the status quo” in favor of pre-installed applications and declare that Google e Alphabet they had not demonstrated that the user preferences or the alleged quality of their services alone explained the behaviors observed. Furthermore, the demonstration of a abuse of dominant position it is not subordinated, in any case, to proof of the ability to exclude solely competitors equally efficient.

Impact on digital markets

Taking into account the specific characteristics of the digital markets in question, the Court could conclude that such practices were suitable for restricting the competition and to strengthen the barriers to entry without resorting to this criterion. Third, the agreements anti-fragmentation were suitable to limit the commercial outlets of the versions Android not compatible and to thus strengthen the dominant position Of Google. And’counterfactual analysis was not necessary in the circumstances of the present case, as they have been sufficiently demonstrated anticompetitive effects of behavior. In addition, the Court could reject them objective justifications adduced by Google regarding the agreements anti-fragmentation and maintain the qualification of single and continuous infringement despite the partial cancellation relating to some agreements revenue sharingsince the remaining abuses still fell within the same category anti-competitive strategy.

The final confirmation of the fine

Finally, the Court confirms the exercise by the Court of its jurisdiction extended to the merits to determine the amount of thefinedeclaring that his reasoning was sufficient and that i procedural principles invoked by Google e Alphabetespecially i rights of defencehad been respected.