English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Google has argued that, in its comparison shopping decision, the European Commission created a novel rule that a dominant company may not favour its own services. Such a rule, it is claimed, would only be justified where the company provided an ‘indispensable service’ as defined in the narrow case law on refusals to deal. This argument, however, confuses the identified abuse with the imposed remedy. The Commission imposed the obligation, to treat rival services like its own services, as a remedy. This remedy does not address a corresponding abusive discrimination or refusal to deal, but effectively brings a monopoly leveraging to an end. Google’s self-promotion is abusive only because it also fulfils long-established criteria for an anti-competitive extension of dominance from a primary market to a distinct, but related, secondary market. An ‘indispensable service’ is not required for this type of abuse.

european competition and regulatory law review

Symposium on Google Search (Shopping) Decision ∙ Duty to Treat Downstream Rivals Equally: (Merely) a Natural Remedy to Google’s Monopoly Leveraging Abuse