—

set aside the judgement under appeal;

—

annul Commission Decision C(2018) 4761 final of 18 July 2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40099 — Google Android) (‘the Decision’);

—

in the alternative, remand the case to the General Court;

—

in the further alternative, set aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal and fix the amount of the fine imposed in Article 2 of the Decision to a significantly lower amount; and

—

order the Commission to bear the appellants’ costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

—

The General Court wrongly reviewed the legality of the MADA preinstallation conditions by reference to the combined effects of impugned MADAs and legitimate Revenue Share Agreements (RSAs).

—

The General Court failed to review whether users’ choices not to download rivals more frequently were attributable to abusive preinstallation rather than user preferences.

—

The General Court wrongly held that evidence relating to default setting was relevant to the analysis of the MADA preinstallation conditions.

—

The General Court erred in its analysis of the effects of the MADA preinstallation conditions by failing to consider the lack of competition that would exist absent those conditions.

—

The General Court failed to review whether tying the Search app (Google Search) to Play was capable of foreclosing as-efficient rival general search services.

—

The General Court failed to review whether tying Chrome browser to Play and the Search app was capable of foreclosing as-efficient rival browsers.

—

The General Court erred by rewriting the Decision’s characterisation of the abusive conduct relating to the anti-fragmentation obligations.

—

The General Court erred by attributing the alleged exclusionary effects to conduct that the Decision did not find to be abusive.

—

The General Court erred in failing to examine the need for the challenged anti-fragmentation obligations.

—

The General Court erred in failing to consider Google’s legitimate interest in protecting the entire Android ecosystem, including in particular non-GMS devices.

—

The General Court erred in upholding the Decision despite the Decision’s failure to properly assess the conditions under which Google adopted an open-source licence for Android.

—

The General Court failed to properly assess the evidence in the file regarding the anti-fragmentation agreement’s necessity, given the inadequacy of a branding solution.