欧盟的自我偏好:谷歌购物案和《数字市场法案》的法律和政策分析

Q4 Social Sciences Competition Law Journal Pub Date : 2023-06-30 DOI:10.4337/clj.2023.01.03
C. Petrucci
{"title":"欧盟的自我偏好:谷歌购物案和《数字市场法案》的法律和政策分析","authors":"C. Petrucci","doi":"10.4337/clj.2023.01.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the EU General Court’s Google Shopping judgment (Case T-612/17), which deals with online self-preferencing. Self-preferencing is a novel abuse of dominant position (Article 102 TFEU), which consists of the prominent display and positioning of the dominant undertaking’s own service (comparison shopping service in this case), and demotion of the competitors’ services, on webpages generated by the dominant undertaking’s general search services. The key-principles in the legal reasoning of the General Court’s ruling were the prohibition of discrimination and coterminous concepts such as ‘equal opportunities to compete’ and ‘competition on the merits’. The differential treatment between Google’s own service and those of its competitors derived from Google’s subjection of its adjustment algorithms only to its competitors and not to its own service. While an approach based on non-discrimination is contentious, on the other hand Google’s conduct was neither efficient nor did it benefit consumers. The article also examines the EU Digital Markets Act’s prohibition of self-preferencing and its relationship with the Google Shopping ruling.","PeriodicalId":36415,"journal":{"name":"Competition Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Self-preferencing in the EU: a legal and policy analysis of the Google Shopping case and the Digital Markets Act\",\"authors\":\"C. Petrucci\",\"doi\":\"10.4337/clj.2023.01.03\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article discusses the EU General Court’s Google Shopping judgment (Case T-612/17), which deals with online self-preferencing. Self-preferencing is a novel abuse of dominant position (Article 102 TFEU), which consists of the prominent display and positioning of the dominant undertaking’s own service (comparison shopping service in this case), and demotion of the competitors’ services, on webpages generated by the dominant undertaking’s general search services. The key-principles in the legal reasoning of the General Court’s ruling were the prohibition of discrimination and coterminous concepts such as ‘equal opportunities to compete’ and ‘competition on the merits’. The differential treatment between Google’s own service and those of its competitors derived from Google’s subjection of its adjustment algorithms only to its competitors and not to its own service. While an approach based on non-discrimination is contentious, on the other hand Google’s conduct was neither efficient nor did it benefit consumers. The article also examines the EU Digital Markets Act’s prohibition of self-preferencing and its relationship with the Google Shopping ruling.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36415,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Competition Law Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Competition Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4337/clj.2023.01.03\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Competition Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/clj.2023.01.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论了欧盟普通法院的谷歌购物判决(案例T-612/17),该判决涉及在线自我偏好。自我偏好是一种新的滥用支配地位的行为(TFEU第102条),它包括在支配性企业的一般搜索服务生成的网页上突出展示和定位自己的服务(在这种情况下是比较购物服务),并降低竞争对手的服务。普通法院裁决的法律推理的关键原则是禁止歧视和相关概念,如“平等竞争机会”和“根据案情进行竞争”。谷歌的调整算法只服从于竞争对手,而不服从于自己的服务,因此谷歌的服务与竞争对手的服务之间存在差别待遇。虽然基于非歧视的方法是有争议的,但另一方面b谷歌的行为既没有效率,也没有使消费者受益。本文还考察了欧盟数字市场法案对自我偏好的禁止及其与谷歌购物裁决的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Self-preferencing in the EU: a legal and policy analysis of the Google Shopping case and the Digital Markets Act
This article discusses the EU General Court’s Google Shopping judgment (Case T-612/17), which deals with online self-preferencing. Self-preferencing is a novel abuse of dominant position (Article 102 TFEU), which consists of the prominent display and positioning of the dominant undertaking’s own service (comparison shopping service in this case), and demotion of the competitors’ services, on webpages generated by the dominant undertaking’s general search services. The key-principles in the legal reasoning of the General Court’s ruling were the prohibition of discrimination and coterminous concepts such as ‘equal opportunities to compete’ and ‘competition on the merits’. The differential treatment between Google’s own service and those of its competitors derived from Google’s subjection of its adjustment algorithms only to its competitors and not to its own service. While an approach based on non-discrimination is contentious, on the other hand Google’s conduct was neither efficient nor did it benefit consumers. The article also examines the EU Digital Markets Act’s prohibition of self-preferencing and its relationship with the Google Shopping ruling.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Competition Law Journal
Competition Law Journal Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
If the Competition and Markets Authority were an emoji: merger clearance lessons from Meta/Giphy Economists on trial: how to make expert duties, meetings, and hot tubs work The UK and EU competition rules for research and development agreements: falling out of lockstep The assessment and communication of the benefits of competition interventions by the Competition and Markets Authority The risks of a form-based approach to exclusionary abuses of dominance – an economic perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1