Preiskel & CoPreiskel & Co
Preiskel & Co
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Diversity, Social Responsibility, and Pro Bono
  • Services
    • Corporate
    • Commercial
    • Regulatory
    • Competition & Antitrust
    • Data Protection, Privacy, and Retention
    • Intellectual Property
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Employment
  • Sectors
    • Telecommunications
    • IT, Technology, & Internet
    • Media and Broadcasting
    • Websites, Blogging, & Social Media
    • Film & Television
    • Gambling & Online Gaming
    • Leisure & Retail
    • Energy & Minerals
    • Cryptocurrency & Blockchain
    • Creative Industries
  • People
    • Daniel Preiskel
    • Ronnie Preiskel
    • Tim Cowen
    • Jose Saras
    • Robert Dougans
    • Karthyaeni Vittala
    • Tina Cowen
    • D A T Green
    • Richard Stewart
    • Mor Swiel
    • Ilanit Appelfeld
    • Stephen Dnes
    • Daniel Oakland
    • Robert Harvey
    • Martina Raciti
    • Joanna Coombs-Huang
    • Xavier Prida
    • Stewart White
    • Alison MacFarlane
    • Hannah Leader
    • Peter Dally
    • Antony Corel
    • Sue Warwick
    • Tony Curzon-Price
    • Shardi Shameli
    • Stephen Hornsby
    • Ewelina James
    • Maria Constantin
    • Sophia Yakhno
    • Rachael Machado
  • International
  • Blog
  • News
    • Publications
  • Contact
Menu back  

EU General Court Google Shopping Decision may boost prospects for future damages claims

November 11, 2021By Preiskel & Co

Google appealed against the European Commission’s findings in its 2017 Google Search (Shopping) Decision in the General Court (GC); however, the GC has dismissed Google’s action and upheld the €2.42bn fine imposed by the Commission in a judgment published on 10 November 2021. The GC found that Google had engaged in anti-competitive activity, having favoured its own comparison-shopping service on its general search results by means of preferential display and positioning of its product through ranking algorithms.

The GC also noted that Google’s general results page can be likened to an essential facility, as there is no actual or potential substitute available. However, it also affirmed that it was not necessary to apply the law on refusal to supply to the case at hand using the Bronner judgment. Even so, the harmful effects of Google’s self-preferential treatment on competition were highlighted by the GC, affirming that this behaviour could have resulted in the disappearance of competing comparison-shopping services, lessened innovation in the market and created less choice for consumers.

However, the GC annulled the Commission’s finding that there had been an infringement in the market for general search services, stating that the Commission did not establish that Google’s conduct had had actual or potential anti-competitive effects thereon.

Regardless, the judgment may be encouraging as to the possible success of future claims for damages where claimants can prove that they suffered a loss, financial or otherwise, or distress from Google’s ability to give preference to its own products in its search results. In particular, this will be relevant for suppliers who can prove that their loss arose from this self-preferential conduct, and that such consequences would not have arisen if Google had prioritised the best or most relevant search results.

You can read the full judgment here. Please contact Tim Cowen with any questions.

Latest Preiskel & Co blog posts
  • New EU rules to boost IoT data sharing: the EU Data Act
    March 30, 2023
  • Advocate General Opinion on Automated Credit-Scoring & Retention of Insolvency Data
    March 28, 2023
  • White House’s Economic Report of the President sets out a roadmap to improve competition in digital markets
    March 22, 2023
  • Brussels Conference brings in industry leaders to discuss the international antitrust landscape
    March 22, 2023
  • Issues in the UK’s forthcoming Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill
    March 17, 2023
  • Stormy weather for cloud computing in the EU
    March 16, 2023
  • Inmarsat Takeover Provisionally Cleared for Take-Off
    March 10, 2023
  • EDPB’s Feedback on the New EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework
    March 6, 2023
  • UK Data Reform Bill to return to the House of Commons
    March 3, 2023
  • DCMS Publishes New Security and Privacy Principles for App Store Operators and Developers
    February 16, 2023
  • DPO’s Dismissal & Conflicts of Interest Under The EU GDPR – CJEU Ruling
    February 14, 2023
  • ICO – Change of Deadline for Reporting Breach Notifications for Communication Service Providers
    February 6, 2023

The Preiskel Blog

  • New EU rules to boost IoT data sharing: the EU Data Act 30 Mar 2023
  • Advocate General Opinion on Automated Credit-Scoring & Retention of Insolvency Data 28 Mar 2023
  • White House’s Economic Report of the President sets out a roadmap to improve competition in digital markets 22 Mar 2023
  • Brussels Conference brings in industry leaders to discuss the international antitrust landscape 22 Mar 2023

Preiskel news

  • Senior Partner, Danny Preiskel, quoted by IT Pro on the costs incurred by MNOs
  • Senior Partner, Danny Preiskel, will be a panellist at GCCM Carrier Community 2023 on IOT
  • Jose Saras and Xavier Prida Awarded First Place as Data Protection Thought Leaders in the UK
  • Ronnie Preiskel chosen to judge 24 May 2023 The Tech Capital Global Awards
Preiskel tweets
  • New EU rules to boost IoT data sharing: the EU Data Act. Find out more at: https://t.co/1OUHlssIOByesterday
  • Advocate General Opinion on Automated Credit-Scoring & Retention of Insolvency Data. Find out more here: https://t.co/bJkvPBvj6F3 days ago
  • Issues in the UK’s forthcoming Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill. Find out more: https://t.co/3BHP1xq69Y8 days ago
Preiskel & Co LLP
4 King's Bench Walk,
Temple,
London
EC4Y 7DL
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7332 5640
Email: info@preiskel.com

Find us on:

TwitterLinkedinMail
© Preiskel & Co LLP 2023 | Site map | Legal notices | Cookie Policy | Privacy