Abstract
Legal qualifications and corresponding legal tests are determinative for the outcome of antitrust cases; they should thus be chosen and designed carefully.
In Google Shopping, the Commission was at best ambiguous as to the legal qualification of Google’s conduct, oscillating between leveraging and favouring.
The General Court resolved this ambiguity by choosing favouring over leveraging; it then went a step further by reframing the abuse as discrimination—a sensible choice.
The Court also put forward several ‘plus factors’ (natural monopoly, quasi– essential facility, closure of open infrastructure, legislative choice for non- discrimination); some need to be further specified, others rejected.
In Google Shopping, the Commission was at best ambiguous as to the legal qualification of Google’s conduct, oscillating between leveraging and favouring.
The General Court resolved this ambiguity by choosing favouring over leveraging; it then went a step further by reframing the abuse as discrimination—a sensible choice.
The Court also put forward several ‘plus factors’ (natural monopoly, quasi– essential facility, closure of open infrastructure, legislative choice for non- discrimination); some need to be further specified, others rejected.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 75-86 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Journal of European Competition Law & Practice |
| Volume | 13 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Mar 2022 |
| Externally published | Yes |