The Court of Justice of the European Union has issued its ruling in Case C-233/23: Alphabet and Others.
In 2018, Enel X Italia launched the JuicePass app in Italy, which helps drivers find and reserve charging stations for electric vehicles. Enel requested Google to make JuicePass compatible with Android Auto, a system that allows smartphone apps to be accessed directly on a vehicle’s onboard screen. Google refused to make the necessary changes to ensure JuicePass would work with Android Auto. The Italian Competition and Market Authority (AGCM) fined Google over €102 million, stating that this refusal was an abuse of Google’s dominant position. The Italian courts referred the case to the CJEU.
The Advocate General indicated that Google’s refusal might violate competition laws in September 2024.
The Court found that Google’s refusal could indeed be considered an abuse of its dominant position. This is because Google developed Android Auto not just for its own use but also to enable third-party companies to use it, making their apps more attractive to consumers. The refusal to grant access can have negative effects on competition, even if the third-party company and its competitors continue to operate and grow in the market without the interoperability.
If a company with a dominant market position refuses to make its platform compatible with an app from another company, this can be considered an abuse of its dominant position. This is true even if the platform is not essential for the app to function. Such a refusal can be justified if there is no existing template for the type of app in question, and creating one would compromise the platform’s security or integrity. It can also be justified if there are other technical reasons that make interoperability impossible. If no such justifications exist, the dominant company must develop a template to enable interoperability within a reasonable time frame. This development should be done in return for appropriate financial compensation, considering the needs of the third-party company, the actual cost of development, and the dominant company’s right to benefit from it.
