This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019TN0334
Case T-334/19: Action brought on 4 June 2019 — Google and Alphabet v Commission
Case T-334/19: Action brought on 4 June 2019 — Google and Alphabet v Commission
Case T-334/19: Action brought on 4 June 2019 — Google and Alphabet v Commission
IO C 255, 29.7.2019, p. 46–48
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
29.7.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 255/46 |
Action brought on 4 June 2019 — Google and Alphabet v Commission
(Case T-334/19)
(2019/C 255/60)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Google LLC (Mountain View, California, United States), Alphabet, Inc. (Mountain View) (represented by: C. Jeffs, lawyer, J. Staples, Solicitor, D. Beard QC and J. Williams, Barrister)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— |
to annul (in whole or in part) the Commission’s decision of 20 March 2019 in Case COMP/AT.40411 — Google Search (AdSense); |
— |
consequently, or in the alternative, to 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
The present action seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 March 2019 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (AT.40411 — Google Search (AdSense)). The applicants seek annulment of each of the three findings of infringement, the finding that they amounted to a single continuous infringement and the imposition of a fine.
In support of the action, they rely on five pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in its assessments of market definition and thus dominance. In particular, the contested decision errs in finding that:
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that Google’s so-called exclusivity clause (‘Site-Exclusivity Clause’) was abusive. The contested decision:
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that Google’s premium placement and minimum Google ads clause (‘Placement Clause’) was abusive. The contested decision:
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that Google’s authorising equivalent ads clause (‘Modification Clause’) was abusive. The contested decision:
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in imposing a fine and in calculating that fine. The contested decision:
|