Case C-233/23, Android Auto (I): How the Case Was Transformed Before the Court of Justice

By: Pablo Ibañez Colomo (Chilling Competition)

In this post for the Chillin’ Competition blog, author Pablo Ibañez Colomo discusses the highly anticipated ruling issued by the Court of Justice in Android Auto. Having followed the case from its early stages, he notes that this judgment exemplifies, perhaps better than any other, the uncertain trajectory of the Magill/IMS Health and Bronner doctrines in today’s evolving economic and technological landscape.

The ruling in Android Auto has the potential to significantly influence both the scope and relevance of these doctrines—arguably to a greater extent than Google Shopping, for example. However, the use of “potential” is deliberate, as the full implications of the judgment will likely become clearer through future references to the Court.

Before delving into the substantive legal aspects, it is worth highlighting an issue that may be of broader interest to EU lawyers—one that is, in fact, among the most intriguing elements of this case.

A key aspect of the judgment is its extensive discussion of the conditions under which the Bronner doctrine applies. Yet, somewhat strikingly, Bronner was not even mentioned in the original AGCM decision. Instead, the authority based its analysis on Magill and IMS Health—doctrines that share similarities but are not entirely identical.

More significantly, and in contrast to Google Shopping, the dispute at the national level did not center on whether the conditions of Magill/IMS Health (or Bronner) were applicable to the case.

Rather, the core issue was how the AGCM interpreted the Magill/IMS Health doctrine, which it considered the appropriate framework for assessing the alleged abuse of dominance. This choice was unsurprising, given that the case involved a straightforward refusal to deal.

That said, one might argue that the AGCM’s interpretation of Magill/IMS Health was somewhat unconventional. It was therefore both logical and expected that the Consiglio di Stato would seek clarification from the Court of Justice by submitting a series of preliminary questions…

CONTINUE READING…