Tuesday, November 5, 2024

EU Adviser: Google’s Block on Enel App May Violate Competition Laws | PYMNTS.com

Must read

Google’s decision to block an electric mobility app created by Enel from its Android Auto platform may violate competition regulations, according to an adviser to the European Union’s top court. This stance aligns with an earlier ruling by Italy’s antitrust authority, which had fined Google for its actions.

Per Reuters, the Italian antitrust regulator imposed a €102 million ($113.2 million) fine on Google’s parent company, Alphabet, in 2021. The penalty was issued after Google barred the Enel JuicePass app from operating on Android Auto, a software platform that allows drivers to use navigation, messaging, and other apps on their vehicle dashboards.

The Court Advocate General, Laila Medina, said that Google’s refusal to grant access to the Android Auto platform could be considered an abuse of its dominant market position. According to Reuters, Medina argued that such behavior could obstruct, delay or exclude third-party apps from the platform, resulting in anti-competitive effects that harm consumers, unless there is a valid justification for the conduct.

Related: Google Heads to Court in Major DOJ Antitrust Battle Over Ad Practices

Google, however, has defended its stance by citing security concerns and the absence of a standardized template for integrating JuicePass into Android Auto. Since then, the company claims to have addressed these issues. “We note the opinion of the Advocate General and await the final decision of the Court. Since this case started, we have worked to add the template Enel asked for, and many similar apps are already available globally on Android Auto,” a Google spokesperson said, according to Reuters.

The case now awaits a final ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which is expected in the coming months. While the court’s judgment is still pending, Reuters notes that CJEU judges often follow the guidance provided in these non-binding advisory opinions. The case is officially filed as C-233/23 Alphabet and Others.

Source: Reuters

Latest article