Sharing my prelim analysis of the main points of law raised by last week's Google Shopping judgment of @EUCourtPress Not my final word.
The General Court approached the case as in Intel v EC, trying to clarify the law
The Court buried to the ground the theory of a transversal Bronner threshold in abuse cases.
A legal rule against self preferencing can be effective in cases where full integration makes no economic sense.The Court he court falls short of explaining why a. My take, it makes sense
Evidence of leveraging alone is not sufficient to affirm antitrust liability against a dominant firm. A 'plus conduct' element is required. Like unequal treatment. Special tests apply.
What the test of illegality for unequal treatment remains unclear => 1/ abnormality; 2/ discrimination?
Platform specificity of the Google ruling?
And the constitutional law controversy!
Less prominent gems.
The Court implicitly treated Google as a public utility, common carrier, natural monopoly, you name it. /END
Sorry abt typos. Pls disregard 2 last sentences, that I thought I had deleted.
A legal rule against self preferencing makes sense in cases where full integration makes no economic sense.
« Abnormal to display w/ favoring » not « w/o »
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.