Short Reads

Google receives a second record fine of EUR 4.34 billion for imposing restrictions on Android device makers

Google receives a second record fine of EUR 4.34 billion for imposing

Google receives a second record fine of EUR 4.34 billion for imposing restrictions on Android device makers

01.08.2018 EU law

On 18 July 2018, the European Commission announced its decision to fine Google EUR 4.34 billion for abusing its dominant position in the general internet search market by imposing illegal restrictions on Android device manufacturers and mobile network operators.

Background

In 2005, Google acquired the developer of the Android mobile operating system, which it has since continued to develop. Although Android is an open-source mobile operating system, most smartphone and tablet manufacturers in Europe use the Android operating system in combination with various Google's proprietary applications and services. In order to obtain the right to install these applications and services on their Android devices, manufacturers are required to enter into agreements with Google which impose a number of restrictions as discussed below. Some of these restrictions were also included in contracts with mobile operators that have the ability to determine which apps and services are installed on devices.

Google's dominance

In Europe, 80% of smart mobile devices run on Android. The Commission concluded that Google is dominant in three relevant markets. First, in accordance with a 2017 decision, the Commission found that Google was dominant in each relevant national market for general internet search throughout the EEA. Google's share of internet searches exceeded 90% in most EEA countries [See our Google comparison shopping article in our July 2017 Newsletter].

Secondly, the Commission found that Google is dominant in the market for licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system. Thirdly, party manufacturers of mobile devices can enter into licence agreements with Google to run Android on their devices. The Commission concluded that Google, with a market share of 95%, is dominant in the worldwide market (excluding China) for licensable smart mobile operating systems. The Commission noted that Android does not compete with operating systems used by vertically-integrated developers like Apple (iOS), because the latter are not available to be licensed by device manufacturers. Equally, competition for end users, in particular between Apple and Android devices, does not indirectly constrain Google's market power, according to the Commission.

Finally, the Commission concluded that Google is dominant in the worldwide market (excluding China) for app stores for the Android mobile operating system. Google's app store accounts for more than 90% of apps downloaded on Android services.

Google's abusive practices

The Commission's investigation indicated that Google imposed three types of restrictions on Android device manufactures and network operators:

  1. Tying of Google's search and browser apps: In order to license Google's app store, manufacturers were required to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome). According to the Commission, users are not likely to download alternative search and browser apps and instead use those pre-installed on their devices. Therefore, tying Google's search and browser apps reduced the incentives of manufacturers to pre-install competing search and browser apps and also the incentives of users to subsequently download them.
  2. Illegal payments conditional on exclusive pre-installation of Google Search: Google made payments to certain large device manufacturers and mobile network operators on the condition that they pre-installed only the Google Search app on their devices, reducing their incentives to pre-install competing search apps.
  3. Illegal obstruction of the development and distribution of competing Android operating systems: Google prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling smart mobile devices running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks"). This harmed competition because it reduced the opportunity for devices running on Android forks to be developed and sold and also closed a relevant channel for competitors to introduce apps and services.

The Commission's record-setting fine underscores its aggressive stance in enforcing competition laws in technology-intensive industries [see our Facebook/Whatsapp and Intel Newsletter]. In addition, this decision will have an important impact on the way dominant undertakings implement licensing models. Although the decision has not yet been published, it has already prompted extensive debate.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of August 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. European Court of Justice dismissed Orange Polska’s appeal in abuse of dominance case
  2. General Court underlines importance of Commission's duty to state reasons
  3. General Court dismisses appeals by investor against power cable cartel fine
  4. European Commission issues a new Best Practices Code for State aid control
  5. District Court in the Netherlands rules on limitation periods in CRT case
  6. Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent economic experts in TenneT v ABB
  7. Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords

Team

Related news

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

06.09.2019 NL law
Supervision of crypto services

Short Reads - On 3 September 2019, De Nederlandsche Bank ("DNB") published a press release in which DNB points out to providers of crypto services that they should prepare for imminent DNB supervision. Companies facilitating the exchange of crypto currency for normal money and companies that offer crypto wallets will have to comply with a registration obligation from the beginning of 2020.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

29.08.2019 NL law
Stibbe partners with the Blue Tulip Awards

Inside Stibbe - Participants in the Blue Tulip Awards can now make use of Stibbe's high-quality legal knowledge, as we have become a partner of the Blue Tulip Awards 2019 in the legal domain. We will provide legal advice on various themes start-ups which have registered for the categories ‘Mobility’ and ‘Finance’. This year's partnership follows our collaboration with last year’s edition, when the event was known as the Accenture Innovation Awards.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring