Self-preferencing: an EU and US perspective following the ECJ Google shopping ruling

Webinar organised by Concurrences, in partnership with Sidley Austin and Charles River Associates, with Brice Allibert (Deputy Head of Unit, European Commission DG COMP), Cristina Caffarra (Senior Consultant, CRA International), Timothy Muris (Foundation Professor of Law and Senior Counsel, George Mason University (Fairfax), Sidley Austin), Kristina Nordlander (Partner, Sidley Austin) and Monika Zdzieborska (Associate, Sidley Austin).

- Synthesis: Available for Concurrences+ subscribers (see above)

- Transcript: Available for Concurrences+ subscribers (to be published above soon)

- Concurrences Related Articles (Click Read More below and see page’s bottom)

Check the Upcoming Conferences section for the next webinars.


Kristina Nordlander moderated the discussion. The General Court’s decision on the 10th of November confirmed a “self-preferencing” theory of harm. Indeed, in certain conditions, self-preferencing can constitute an abuse of a dominant position. The case was about Google being found to have treated its own comparison-shopping service better than competing services that were subject to other, less favorable rules.

The discussion focused on four main topics. First, the panel discussed what the Court said on how to define self-preferencing abuse. Second, a presentation of the legal test applied by the Court. Third, panelists discussed whether the Court’s approach to this type of conduct makes sense from an economic perspective. Finally, the last points concerned the wider implication, what does this mean for ongoing and future cases, for the Commission’s and Member States’ big tech agenda, and from a US perspective.

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.