Google’s ‘Be Evil’ transformation (if not merely a narrative) and the antitrust efforts to avenge it (if not exact revenge) are no longer novel. Most notably, following Judge Amit P. Mehta’s historic 2024 ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Google’s exclusive agreements, including ISA (Internet Services Agreement), MADAs (Mobile…
The topic of the essential facility doctrine has made unexpectedly frequent appearances in EU case law over the past few years, which continues to refine the application scope of Bronner. The recent preliminary procedure in the case of Google Android Auto will inevitably become part of this process, which may have some significant consequences in…
The recent Google Shopping ruling has already sparked much debate, and an earlier blog post offers a detailed overview of the judgment itself. Building on this, this contribution’s focus is to emphasize and discuss some aspects in the academic analysis, the judgment’s broader implications and outlook for further actions. It builds upon a recently published…
Introduction The decision of the ECJ of 10th of September 2024 (C-48/22 P) brings the Google Shopping saga to an end. The decision by the highest court confirms the conviction of Alphabet by the General Court (T-612/17) (see the blogpost on General Court’s decision here). The European Commission had previously imposed a record fine of…
In a preliminary ruling issued on 14 March 2024, the District Court in Warsaw (DCW) granted Ceneo Ltd. an interim injunction in respect of non-monetary claims against Google Ireland Ltd. to cease acts of unfair competition on the Polish territory, consisting in the creation of market entry barriers for the plaintiff. This ruling precedes (temporarily…
Interpreting and applying Article 102 TFEU – at least in all difficult cases that typically reach the courts – requires a combined reliance on both ‘reason’ and ‘fiat’. It requires reliance on ‘reason’, by which I mean substantive reasoning about how a case should be decided, because no case is exactly like any other, and…
The Digital Markets Act (DMA) became entirely applicable on 7 March 2024. By then, the gatekeepers issued their compliance reports documenting their technical solutions and implementation of the DMA’s provisions under Article 11 DMA as well as their reports on consumer profiling techniques as required under Article 15 DMA (see here). I will be covering…
The Digital Markets Act (DMA) is now applicable. Following the 6-month interim period where gatekeepers had the opportunity to adapt their business models to the regulation, the DMA now requires them to prove their effective compliance with its provisions. To do that, on 7 March 2024, the six designated gatekeepers in September (see here) presented…
On 5 October 2023, the German competition authority adopted its first tangible evidence of enforcement surrounding its new competition rules (Section 19a GWB) directed at undertakings with paramount significance for competition across markets on its case against Google for its data processing terms (see the Bundeskartellamt’s decision designating Alphabet here and a previous comment on…
On 21 June 2023, the Bundeskartellamt, the Federal Cartel Office (FCO), sent a statement of objections to Google and published its preliminary legal assessment of Google’s practices in connection with Google Automotive Services (GAS). According to the Authority’s preliminary evaluation, Google’s practices regarding the licencing of services for infotainment systems in vehicles fulfil the requirements…
