A Blow to Google’s Defense
The ruling followed a referral from Italy’s Council of State, which is reviewing Google’s challenge to the Italian Competition Authority’s (AGCM) fine. The ECJ’s decision aligns with a prior advisory opinion from Advocate General Laila Medina, who argued that dominant tech firms cannot arbitrarily block third-party access when their platforms are meant for broader use.
Google’s actions, according to the court, may have unfairly disadvantaged Enel by limiting JuicePass’s appeal to consumers. While the app remained available through other means, its absence from Android Auto likely deterred potential users. The court’s opinion suggests that such exclusionary tactics could constitute anti-competitive behavior—even if they don’t outright eliminate competition.
What’s Next for Google?
The case now returns to the Italian Council of State, where Google will attempt to justify its actions. The tech giant has maintained that its decisions were based on prioritizing features most useful to drivers, rather than catering to specific companies. In a statement, a Google spokesperson noted that the requested features have since been introduced and emphasized that the change originally affected just 0.04% of cars in Italy.
Google’s legal battle mirrors broader global scrutiny over its market dominance, with regulators increasingly cracking down on potential abuses in digital ecosystems. As the final decision looms, the case could set a precedent for how dominant tech firms interact with third-party developers in tightly controlled digital spaces.
