Download pdf
“Self-preferencing”: An Analysis on the Way of Anti-Competitive Conduct
- 1 University of Warwick
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Since the emergence of the Google Shopping case, a whole new type of abuse of market dominance has entered the public eye. In an Internet oligopoly, it uses its own company’s product advantages in terms of algorithms, data, etc., to limit the competitiveness of its competitors. It is similar to traditional abuses of market dominance, such as tying and refusal to supply. However, it only partially meets all the behavioural elements of traditional monopolistic behaviour. Its widespread use by start-ups to support and protect their growth is not prohibited by law. However, when Internet oligopolies use it to support their products, it creates a monopoly that restricts competition like other abuses of market dominance. There is no clear and uniform definition of this type of behaviour, and the forms of behaviour are often varied, which may lead to abuse of the offence if they are arbitrarily criminalised. Therefore, “self-referral” conduct that can be criminalised should be strictly limited. This type of behaviour is widespread in the Internet sector, which is why countries have introduced laws such as the Digital Marketplace Act and the American Innovation and Online Choices Act to regulate such behaviour. Ultimately, however, the impact of the behaviour on the competitive environment of a typical market and the interests of consumers must be examined from the perspectives of both competitors and consumers to determine whether “self-referral” behaviour is in breach of Article 102 of the TFEU.
Keywords
self-preferencing, Google shopping case, TFEU
[1]. C. S. Hutchinson and D. Treščáková. Tackling gatekeepers’ self-preferencing practices. European Competition Journal, 18(3)(2022), pp. 567–590.
[2]. P. Bougette, O. Budzinski, and F. M. Marty. Self-Preferencing and Competitive Damages: A Focus on Exploitative Abuses. SSRN Electronic Journal, 67(2)(2022), pp. 190–207.
[3]. Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/1, art 102.
[4]. A. Jones, B. Sufrin, and N. Niamh, Jones & Sufrin’s EU COMPETITION LAW : text, cases, and materials. S.L.: Oxford Univ Press, 2019, pp. 484–494.
[5]. Case T-612/17 Google and Alphabet v Commission (Google Shopping), EU: T:2021:763.
[6]. Google Android (Case AT.40099) Commission Decision of 18.7.2018.
[7]. Amazon Marketplace (Case AT.40462) and Amazon Buy Box (Case AT.40703) Commission Decision of 20.12.2022.
[8]. Google Search (Case AT.39740) Commission Decision of 27.6.2017.
[9]. Case C-7/97 Oscar Bronner, EU: C:1998:569.
[10]. R. Bunworth. In the Market for a New Form of Abuse? Google Shopping and the Law on Self-Preferencing in the EU. Hibernian Law Journal, 21(2022), pp. 121–139.
[11]. Text - S.2992 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): American Innovation and Choice Online Act, S.2992, 117th Cong. (2022), section 2(5) <https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2992/text.> accessed 18 April 2023.
[12]. Digital Markets Act [2020] OJ L265/1, art 3.
[13]. Simon P. Anderson and Özlem Bedre-Defoli. Hybrid Platform Model, (2021) IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc 01/2021 <https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/16243.html> accessed 18 April 2023.
[14]. European Commission, Directorate-General for Competition, Jacques Crémer, Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye and Heike Schweitzer. Competition policy for the digital era. Publications Office, (2019) <https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2763/407537> accessed 18 April 2023.
[15]. Brown Shoe Co., Inc. v. United States, 370 US 294 (1962).
Cite this article
Huang,Y. (2023). “Self-preferencing”: An Analysis on the Way of Anti-Competitive Conduct. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,29,108-114.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Interdisciplinary Humanities and Communication Studies
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).