@article{hoppner2017symposium author = {Thomas Hoppner}, title = {Symposium on Google Search (Shopping) Decision ∙ Duty to Treat Downstream Rivals Equally:}, journal = {European Competition and Regulatory Law Review}, volume = {1}, number = {3}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Google has argued that, in its comparison shopping decision, the European Commission created a novel rule that a dominant company may not favour its own services. Such a rule, it is claimed, would only be justified where the company provided an ‘indispensable service’ as defined in the narrow case law on refusals to deal. This argument, however, confuses the identified abuse with the imposed remedy. The Commission imposed the obligation, to treat rival services like its own services, as a remedy. This remedy does not address a corresponding abusive discrimination or refusal to deal, but effectively brings a monopoly leveraging to an end. Google’s self-promotion is abusive only because it also fulfils long-established criteria for an anti-competitive extension of dominance from a primary market to a distinct, but related, secondary market. An ‘indispensable service’ is not required for this type of abuse.}, url = {https://doi.org/10.21552/core/2017/3/8} doi = {10.21552/core/2017/3/8} }