– Synthèse : Accessible aux abonnés Concurrences+ (prochainement publiée ci-dessus)
– Retranscription : Accessible aux abonnés Concurrences+ (prochainement publiée ci-dessus)
– Articles Concurrences (Cliquez sur Voir plus ci-dessous) Consultez la section "Prochaines Conferences" pour vous inscrire aux futurs webinaires.
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.