# C_2017369EN.01003701.xml

| 30.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 369/37 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 11 September 2017 — Google and Alphabet v Commission

(Case T-612/17)

(2017/C 369/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Google Inc. (Mountain View, California, United States) and Alphabet Inc. (Mountain View) (represented by: T. Graf, R. Snelders and C. Thomas, lawyers, K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitor, R. O’Donoghue and D. Piccinin, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission decision of 27 June 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFUE and Article 54 of the Agreement on the EEA (AT.39741 — Google Search (Shopping)); |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on the Applicants in exercise of the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction, and |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | in any event, order the Commission to bear the Applicants’ costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that Google favoured a Google comparison shopping service by showing grouped product results (Product Universals).
—
The applicants put forward that the contested decision misstates the facts. According to the applicants, Google launched grouped product results to improve quality, not to drive traffic to a Google comparison shopping service. —
The applicants further put forward that the contested decision errs in finding that treating product results and generic results differently involved favouring, when there was no discrimination. —
The applicants finally put forward that the contested decision violates the legal standard for assessing Google’s objective justifications for showing Product Universals. | — | The applicants put forward that the contested decision misstates the facts. According to the applicants, Google launched grouped product results to improve quality, not to drive traffic to a Google comparison shopping service. | — | The applicants further put forward that the contested decision errs in finding that treating product results and generic results differently involved favouring, when there was no discrimination. | — | The applicants finally put forward that the contested decision violates the legal standard for assessing Google’s objective justifications for showing Product Universals. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicants put forward that the contested decision misstates the facts. According to the applicants, Google launched grouped product results to improve quality, not to drive traffic to a Google comparison shopping service. | | | | | | |
| — | The applicants further put forward that the contested decision errs in finding that treating product results and generic results differently involved favouring, when there was no discrimination. | | | | | | |
| — | The applicants finally put forward that the contested decision violates the legal standard for assessing Google’s objective justifications for showing Product Universals. | | | | | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that Google favours a Google comparison shopping service by showing grouped product ads (Shopping Units).
—
The applicants put forward that the contested decision errs in finding that treating grouped product ads and free generic results differently involves favouring, when there is no discrimination. —
The applicants further put forward that the contested decision errs in finding that product ads in Shopping Units benefit a Google comparison shopping service. —
The applicants finally put forward that the contested decision violates the legal standard for assessing Google’s objective justifications for showing Shopping Units. | — | The applicants put forward that the contested decision errs in finding that treating grouped product ads and free generic results differently involves favouring, when there is no discrimination. | — | The applicants further put forward that the contested decision errs in finding that product ads in Shopping Units benefit a Google comparison shopping service. | — | The applicants finally put forward that the contested decision violates the legal standard for assessing Google’s objective justifications for showing Shopping Units. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicants put forward that the contested decision errs in finding that treating grouped product ads and free generic results differently involves favouring, when there is no discrimination. | | | | | | |
| — | The applicants further put forward that the contested decision errs in finding that product ads in Shopping Units benefit a Google comparison shopping service. | | | | | | |
| — | The applicants finally put forward that the contested decision violates the legal standard for assessing Google’s objective justifications for showing Shopping Units. | | | | | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that the alleged abusive conduct diverted Google search traffic.
—
The applicants put forward that the contested decision does not demonstrate that the alleged abusive conduct decreased Google search traffic to aggregators. —
The applicants further put forward that the contested decision does not demonstrate that the alleged abusive conduct increased traffic to a Google comparison shopping service. | — | The applicants put forward that the contested decision does not demonstrate that the alleged abusive conduct decreased Google search traffic to aggregators. | — | The applicants further put forward that the contested decision does not demonstrate that the alleged abusive conduct increased traffic to a Google comparison shopping service. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicants put forward that the contested decision does not demonstrate that the alleged abusive conduct decreased Google search traffic to aggregators. | | | | |
| — | The applicants further put forward that the contested decision does not demonstrate that the alleged abusive conduct increased traffic to a Google comparison shopping service. | | | | |

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that the alleged abusive conduct is likely to have anticompetitive effects.
—
The applicants put forward that the contested decision errs because it speculates about potential anticompetitive effects without examining actual market developments. —
The applicants further put forward that the contested decision fails to take proper account of the competitive constraint exercised by merchant platforms. —
The applicants finally put forward that even if the competitive analysis could be limited to aggregators, the contested decision fails to show anticompetitive effects. | — | The applicants put forward that the contested decision errs because it speculates about potential anticompetitive effects without examining actual market developments. | — | The applicants further put forward that the contested decision fails to take proper account of the competitive constraint exercised by merchant platforms. | — | The applicants finally put forward that even if the competitive analysis could be limited to aggregators, the contested decision fails to show anticompetitive effects. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicants put forward that the contested decision errs because it speculates about potential anticompetitive effects without examining actual market developments. | | | | | | |
| — | The applicants further put forward that the contested decision fails to take proper account of the competitive constraint exercised by merchant platforms. | | | | | | |
| — | The applicants finally put forward that even if the competitive analysis could be limited to aggregators, the contested decision fails to show anticompetitive effects. | | | | | | |

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs by treating quality improvements that constitute competition on the merits as abusive.
—
The applicants put forward that the decision wrongly characterises Google’s product improvements in general search as abusive leveraging. —
The applicants further put forward that the contested decision demands that Google supply aggregators with access to its product improvements, without meeting the requisite legal conditions. | — | The applicants put forward that the decision wrongly characterises Google’s product improvements in general search as abusive leveraging. | — | The applicants further put forward that the contested decision demands that Google supply aggregators with access to its product improvements, without meeting the requisite legal conditions. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicants put forward that the decision wrongly characterises Google’s product improvements in general search as abusive leveraging. | | | | |
| — | The applicants further put forward that the contested decision demands that Google supply aggregators with access to its product improvements, without meeting the requisite legal conditions. | | | | |

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in imposing a fine.
—
The applicants put forward that a fine was not warranted because the Commission advanced a novel theory, selected the case for commitments, and previously rejected the remedy. —
The applicants further put forward that the contested decision errs in calculating the fine. | — | The applicants put forward that a fine was not warranted because the Commission advanced a novel theory, selected the case for commitments, and previously rejected the remedy. | — | The applicants further put forward that the contested decision errs in calculating the fine. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicants put forward that a fine was not warranted because the Commission advanced a novel theory, selected the case for commitments, and previously rejected the remedy. | | | | |
| — | The applicants further put forward that the contested decision errs in calculating the fine. | | | | |

---