Google and Alphabet v Commission (Google Shopping) - Shopping For a New Ex-Ante Approach?
Author | Eoin Jackson |
Position | Fourth Year BCL Law Student, Trinity College Dublin |
Pages | 142-148 |
(2022) 21 COLR 142
142
GOOGLE AND ALPHABET V COMMISSION (GOOGLE SHOPPING) -
SHOPPING FOR A NEW EX-ANTE APPROACH?
Eoin Jackson*
A INTRODUCTION
This case note will examine the decision of the General Court of the European Union to uphold
the finding of the European Commission (‘The Commission’) that Google had abused its
dominant position in the market for online search services within the EU.
1
The decision will
be examined in the context of the broader campaign to regulate digital platforms,
2
to assess
whether its findings align with the EU’s attempts to introduce sector-specific ex ante regulation
of ‘Big Tech’.
3
This context will be used to demonstrate that the decision represents an
important step forward in the effort to introduce and enforce the Digital Markets Act.
4
B FACTS
In 2017, the Commission fined Google €2.42 billion.
5
This was on the basis that Google had
systematically given preferential treatment to its ‘Google Shopping’ service in search options
over that of its competitors.
6
The Commission determined that this self-preferential treatment
was in breach of article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),
7
and accordingly calculated a fine using the revenue figures of Google from 2008-2017, when
the practice was alleged to have been initiated.
8
* Fourth Year BCL Law Student, Trinity College Dublin
1
Case T-612/17 Google and Alphabet v Commission (Google Shopping) [2022] OJ C24/25.
2
Dipayan Ghosh, ‘Are we Entering a New Era of Social Media Regulation’ Harvard Business Review (Brighton,
Massachusetts, 14 January 2021).
3
Eline Chivot, ‘The New EU Rulebook for Online Platforms: How to get it right, who will it impact and what
else is needed?’ (2021) 20(2) European View 121.
4
European Commission, ‘Proposal for a Regulation of The European Parliament and of the Council on
Contestable and Fair Markets in The Digital Sector (Digital Markets Act)’ COM (2020) 842 final.
5
Google Search (Shopping) (Case AT.39740) Commission Decision C (2017) 4444 final [2018] OJ C 9/11.
6
Penelope A Bergkamp, ‘The European Commission’s Google Shopping decision: Could bias have anything to
do with it?’ (2019) 26(4) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 524.
7
Agustin Reyna and David Martin, ‘Online Gatekeeping and the Google Shopping Antitrust Decision: The
Beginning of the End or the End of the Beginning?’ (2017) 1(3) European Competition and Regulat ory Law
Review 204.
8
Eduardo Aguilera Valdivia, ‘The Scope of the “Special Responsibility” upon Vertic ally Integrated Dominant
Firms after the Google Shopping Case’ (2018) 41(1) World Competition Law and Economics Review 1.
To continue reading
Request your trial