this General Court European Union this Wednesday source Google against European Commission and the fine was reduced to 4,125 million euros Brussels imposed on him in 2018 For considering that it imposes illegal restrictions on manufacturers of devices using the Android operating system to strengthen its dominant position.
The initial fine was 4,343 million euros.
The sentence can still be appealed before the EU Court of Justice, the highest court.
European Commission fined Google for forcing Android device manufacturers to install the Google Search engine and browser in the first place Google Chrome in exchange for giving them the license of the company’s mobile app store, the Play Store.
Secondly, by preventing companies that want to sell mobile phones and tablets with Google applications from installing alternative versions of the operating system on mobile devices, Known as “forks of Android”.
And finally, to subordinate some of Google’s advertising revenue to manufacturers and mobile network operators. These do not install any other alternative search engine to Google Search.
In its ruling this Wednesday, TGUE acknowledged the Community Manager’s arguments that the requirement to install Google Search and Google Chrome could lead to a “status quo bias” due to “users’ tendency to use apps that are already installed.” mobile phones and tablets, “unless this advantage is offset by Google’s competitors”.
“None of the criticisms made by Google undermine the Commission’s analysis on this point,” the Luxembourg-based court said.
“Abuse” agreements
The judges further affirmed that “the Commission could reasonably consider”.subjecting ad revenue to non-installation of competing apps created “exclusivity agreements”D”.
However, the decision dismissed the allegations made by Brussels. these deals were “exploited”In a way that Google has the capacity to restrict competition on the merits of its competitors.
On the one hand, the TGUE noted that Brussels’ finding that such agreements affect “a significant portion of the national markets for general call services” is “not supported by the elements presented by the Commission”.
for the other, noted “a few logic errors” in the so-called “equally effective competitor” test by the Commission, This evaluates the chances of a rival Google company competing in search services if its app were installed on devices.
These assessment errors in the Commission’s estimate of the costs attributable to such a competitor, the ability to pre-install its application, and the revenue that can be generated based on the age of mobile devices in circulation.
TGUE also evaluated: Google’s restrictions on the sale of mobile devices with alternative Android systems enabled it to strengthen its position. It acted as a brake on innovation by limiting the offerings available to users, which dominate the search service markets.
Additionally, the court rejected Google’s argument regarding the ability of Apple or Blackberry to compete equally, because, according to the court, the operating systems are “not part of the same market” as if manufacturers were unable to license the software. It happens with Android’s open source.
Finally, TGUE denied Google’s claims regarding the alleged violation of the right of defense. AND