Information Technology as a Challenge for EU Law Google - Abuse of Dominant Position within the EU Abstract Google is primarily an ad-centric platform-based ecosystem and its services are daily used by millions of consumers, many without any monetary compensation. However, despite this undeniable benefit, due to its anti-competitive conduct (abuse of its dominant position) within the EEA, the European Commission had to intervene and impose fines and remedies on Google in order to restore competition on the merits and cease further consumer harm. The objective of this thesis is to establish, whether it was the conduct of Google which caused consumer harm, in qualitative terms of diminishing consumer choice and stifling innovation, or whether it was the allegedly interventionist approach of the European Commission, established through the remedies stipulated in the analysed decisions, which caused it. To reach this objective, firstly, the economic realities of multisided platforms are explained in Chapter 1. Afterwards, in Chapter 2, the specification of consumer harm in the digital markets coupled with the factors which influence consumer harm are discussed. Then, in Chapters 3 to 5 three separate analyses of three separate decisions on Google's abuse of dominant position are presented - namely - Google...

Since the internet revolution, and with the ever-growing presence of the internet in our everyday lives, being able to control as much data as possible has become an indispensable part of any business looking to succeed on digital markets. This is where Big Data has become crucial. Being able to gather, but more importantly process and understand data, has allowed companies to tailor their services according to the unspoken wants of the consumer as well as optimize ad sales according to consumers’ online patterns. Considering the significant power over digital markets possessed by certain companies, it becomes critical to examine such companies from a competition law perspective. Refusal to supply, which is an abuse of a dominant position according to Article 102 TFEU, can be used to compel abusive undertakings to share a product or service, which they alone possess, and which is indispensable input in another product, with competitors. This is otherwise known as the Essential Facilities Doctrine. If the Big Data used by attention platforms such as Facebook or Google were to be considered such an indispensable product, these undertakings would be required to share Big Data with competitors. While Big Data enables the dominant positions held by powerful attention platforms today, there are certain aspects of it and its particular uses by such platforms that do not allow for the application of the Essential Facilities Doctrine. Considering the significance of Big Data for these undertakings, however, there may be need for a reform of the Essential Facilities Doctrine. From a purely competition standpoint, allowing the application of the Essential Facilities Doctrine to Big Data would be beneficial, particularly considering the doctrine’s effect on innovation. However, enforcing an obligation to share Big Data with competitors would be in breach of privacy policies within the EU. While competition decisions made by the Commission do not directly concern rules set forth in such policies, the Commission is still obligated to respect the right to privacy set forth in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Thus, while the significance of Big Data demands a change in how it is approached by competition law, the Essential Facilities Doctrine is not the appropriate remedy.

In South Africa compliance with competition law has become a major concern for firms that achieve and maintain certain levels of success and growth in the market, as their actions are often a source of complaints and litigation by rivals and competition authorities. With substantial financial penalties often levied against them for a variety of conduct deemed to constitute an abuse of their market position, dominant firms must constantly be aware of the likely impact of their business strategies and actions on both rivals and consumers. What were once thought to be normal and economically sound business practices and decisions, such as cutting prices to attract customers, have now acquired new meanings, with devastating consequences for dominant firms. So, are dominant firms under attack from competition law? In this study I aim to determine this. I track the historical development of competition law in three jurisdictions: South Africa, America, and the EU, with the aim of identifying traces, if any, of hostility towards dominant firms in the origins of competition law. I further investigate whether the formulation and enforcement of certain aspects of existing abuse of dominance provisions manifest as hostility towards dominant firms. While acknowledging the important role that competition law enforcement plays in promoting competition and enhancing consumer welfare, I conclude that significant unjustified economic and legal prejudice is suffered by dominant firms as a result of the way in which certain abuse of dominance provisions have been formulated and applied. I also offer appropriate recommendations. / Mercantile Law / LL. D.