UEFA v #SuperLeague has ended. Lots of Qs from judges, hinting where the fault lines of the case are:
- Treaty articles on sport & antitrust
- 'closed competitions'
- Solidarity payments
- notion of 'restricting competition'
- specificities of sport
Settle down for a /thread Jan Passer, reporting judge, asked about money. He wants to know how much cash countries get from UEFA. What %age of their income? He asked #ESL what its plans are.

#ESL has a solidarity fund. But it is voluntary. Still, they reckon it's better than UEFA's. /1

It's been pretty brutal for #EuropeanSuperLeague this morning in #EUhearing against @UEFA

EU countries lining up to call it a "cartel" that rubbishes "Europe's model of sport."

Romania, Poland, Malta, Portugal, Austria, Slovenia. None of them had a positive word for #ESL /1 Norway was also there. (It isn't an EU member, but it took up its right to plead before ECJ). It noted that Norwegian teams from the provinces had been promoted and played European sport because of the openness of UEFA structure, on sporting merit. #ESL puts that at risk /2

One-way traffic at ECJ today against the #EuropeanSuperLeague

Country after country is standing up and backing @UEFA 's right to block ESL attempt to set up a rival league. Small countries (Estonia, Ireland, Denmark etc) see themselves excluded from the 'closed competition.' /1 They also note the money they get from @UEFA which feeds into the grass roots. They reckon their clubs would never get into the closed-shop ESL.

They say the UEFA regime of authorizing rival events serves legitimate purposes of protecting European sport /2

"Do you believe that @UEFA will ever authorise a competitor to the Champions League?"

#EuropeanSuperLeague lawyer Miguel Odriozola starts ECJ hearing with a rhetorical question.

"The answer that you are all thinking of is NO. Never." /thread Both sides went at it for an hour or so this pm. UEFA and FIFA on one side, ESL and its promoter A22 on the other.

The shortest summary:

ESL: "you're an ugly monopoly, UEFA!!!"
UEFA: "you guy's are a money-grabbing cartel!!!" /2

Update: EU court opened with skating dispute, saying it was the "warm-up" for #SuperLeague
Short summary:
- very engaged court
- will pose qu's later on conflicts of interest at @uefa
- will explore EU treaty conflict btw sport & competition law
- Opinion slated for Dec 15
/1 This morning was about International Skating Union @ISU_Speed against @EU_Commission over #antitrust decision that excluded @marktuitert from Dubai-based events.

ISU imposed bans because the Dubai event featured betting. EC said the eligibility criteria were not transparent. /2

Huge day of sport at EU’s top court. If you like football or indeed love speed skating, then I’ll be there for you.

In short, it’s about whether UEFA can block rival competitions such as the #SuperLeague Here’s what it’s about /thread 15 judges at @EUCourtPress are reviewing the fight between #ESL and @UEFA

Despite the club mutiny, ESL is still pursuing its case in Madrid court over UEFA’s rules being unfair & blocking rival competitions. A Madrid court has asked the EU court for help. /1

Back in ECJ today for everyone's favourite bit of caselaw: 'Bronner.' Less sexy than Google, but it's still relevant. It's all about 19km of train track in Lithuanian. But argument is central to @Google appeal against its first big #antitrust fine. Bear with me, nerds. Thread/1 Before we start, let's remind ourselves what Oscar Bronner looks like. The case that bears his name sets out when competitors can get access to dominant company's infrastructure. For him, this was about delivering his magazines via someone's else's network. Nice smile, Oscar! /2

I've slept on it. Here's a 'tepid-take' (HT @DrMJCole) on Google ruling.
- politically: huge for @vestager
- practically: won't change much becoz #DMA is new kid in town,
- legally: EU judges' stance on 'essential facility' will cause controversy & perhaps an appeal
/thread 1st, politically:

Court approval for @EU_Competition mantra of 'self-preferencing' is huge; this concept underpins the last decade of action & rhetoric from Brussels, and now the whole world.

Court blessing for that will be read as: 'keep going, you're on the right track.' /2

My wrap on final session of #GoogleHearing.

Google went hard on benefits Android has created, creating platform that spurred competition. It said it has right to promote Android & not rest on its laurels.

EC said: G “gave itself the laurel wreath before race had started”/1 Google said EC had failed to prove preinstallation was anticompetitive because other apps/services could be downloaded easily & accessed through browsers.

EC said G execs knew full well their success rested in “not making its services optional.” /2

#GoogleHearing winds up today. Closing arguments from @Google and @EU_Commission

This will be a set-piece affair & judge already indicated last night he’s done with questioning. So, it’ll be more like: Lawyers use this session to a) hit their strongest arguments again, b) address some lingering doubts by the judges to try to change their minds, c) make sweeping statements about the importance of X or Y for the future of the law/business. /2

Last volley from #GoogleHearing today & it was important.

EU judges wanted to know: if we side with Google on one slice of their case does it destroy the whole @EU_Commission #antitrust decision?

Essentially, court is exploring the prospects of a partial @Google win /thread This was all couched as "hypothetical" by judge Frimodt Nielsen (& I've seen other hearings where this happens) but it shows court is working out consequences of accepting at least parts of @Google appeal.

Why is this a tricky legal?

Well, funny you asked. Let me tell you. /1

.@sundarpichai could've known Google was acting abusively, given he blogged about similar @Microsoft conduct in 2009.

That's the nub of @EU_Commission response to @Google claim that the 4.34bn fine over Android contracts was 'novel.'

This p.m. at #ECJ, it was all about money/1 Google took on the "staggering" antitrust fine in its pleas today, saying it should have been less (or zero) given it couldn't have known that EC would hit an open platform like this.

EC said: the case was about tying software to operating systems. You knew about that already/2

Break for lunch in #GoogleHearing at ECJ. Here's what happened this morning:

- Google argued that EC introduced new elements into its investigation (an AEC test) & because it did this in a letter instead of a charge-sheet, Google couldn't have a private hearing on it /1 - if G had had a hearing, it could have better defended itself against accusations of dodgy revenue-sharing agreements w/ phonemakers
- so, the procedural failure should mean court annuls this part of decision

EC aint buying this:
- says Google opted against hearing after SO /2

Day4 of #GoogleHearing is upon us: they'll discuss procedural irregularities & the mega 4.34bn fine.

On procedure:
- Google says EC should have sent it formal charges (and not a so-called Letter of Facts), since this would have triggered a right to a closed-doors hearing. /1 - Not doing so deprived it of the right to be heard
- Google also says EC didn't record minutes of interviews with other companies sufficiently. Again, this means its defence rights were harmed.

- EC says: the LoF had no new charges, so it didn't need to be an SO. /2

Day 3 of #GoogleHearing has wrapped up.

P.M was devoted to the anti-fragmentation rules which Google says ensured "compatibility" on #Android platform & developers loved it.

EC said: nope, they stopped companies like Amazon developing new devices/platforms (such as Fire) /1 It was a colourful afternoon, including some swearing, some niggle over naming executives & the judge drawn a "cartoon" of "Androidville."

Google says "forked" versions of Android don't offer competition to Google's products. EC says: you're trying to stop rivals emerging. /2

Google now gets a chance to defend its "anti-fragmentation" rules. This AFA contract was meant to ensure apps and services had baseline compatibility with the Android OS.

EC believes that the AFA stopped phonemakers selling phones that had adapted Android into "forks." /1 Google says it's entitled to have compatibility rules across the entire Android eco-system (not just for certain devices) & this has triggered huge benefits with developers knowing they can make a single app & it works everywhere. It's trying to avoid fate of Symbian, it says /2

Danish judge Frimodt Nielsen running the #GoogleHearing is hugely self-effacing. Makes lots of apologetic "sorry, if I've got this wrong" & "please forgive me" comments.

On Day 3 of the case, @Google & @EU_Commission not really buying this.

Judge has clearly got 3 brains. /1 They continue to show him deference (naturally, what else?), but such well-practiced lawyers are acutely aware of not getting ambushed by a question that's "so apparently simple" on the face of it.

Whispered consensus is that judge is doing a v good job & 'gets it'/ends

Most of the Google #antitrust hearing this morning has been about #camembert.

Let me explain.

The court is looking at Google/phonemakers agreements to share revenues from search pre-installed on devices - known as RSAs.

EC thinks these excluded rivals & broke the law/1 Google says these are (a) not exclusive because other services can get on the handset; (b) the RSAs cover such as small slice of the market that they had no exclusionary impact.

So, it comes down to "coverage."

EC says that coverage might be small but it's crucial for rivals/2

Day 2 is over at #GoogleHearing in EU court.

Final little flurry of questioning went to the issue of Google's search engine being "superior" to rivals, and that was why users liked it. Not because of any #antitrust restriction on Android...as the argument goes.

Thread/1 Google said the @EU_Commission had failed to do a consumer survey & had relied on Play Store ratings, which were "remarkably superficial." EC pointed to internal @Google emails that showed company didn't want to make its tech "optional." German publishers said no rivals could../2

Next week, it’s Google Time again. They are back in EU court to challenge a @EU_Commission fine.

This time it’s big. The biggest ever fine imposed in EU (4.3bn) and, possibly, for the soul of your mobile phone.

You’ll get bored of me next week. So here a preview /thread .@EU_Commission fined them in 2018 for trying to extend the dominant search engine on your laptop onto your mobile. You probably have this framed at home, but anyway, the press release ec.europa.eu/commission/pre… /2

#DMA getting more complex by the minute. Today, national #antitrust watchdogs weighed in with a joint paper, saying they want to enforce it as well.

This is turning into a bit of a mess. Some thoughts. First, here's the paper: autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/sites/default/… /1 First half of the paper is a big brag about all the Big Tech work the authorities have done. Hard to contest this. Watchdogs in FR & DE have, in particular, been doing plenty in recent years. For them, this means they have loads of knowledge. And the DMA should make use of that/2