Unequal Treatment by Online Platforms: A Structured Approach to the Abuse Test in Google
GCLC Annual Conference Series (Louvain-la-Neuve, Bruylant 2017, Forthcoming)
2016
- 2,046Usage
- 6Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Paper Description
This paper discusses the requirement for legal certainty in the enforcement of the abuse of dominance prohibition in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the approach that should be taken, under the current legal framework, to the assessment of the alleged conduct by Google consisting in displaying links to specialised results from its own comparison shopping services differently to links to competing vertical comparison shopping services. The author challenges the view that concepts such as "competition on the merits" or "special responsibility" can be a sufficiently certain legal basis for imposing liability on dominant undertakings. The idea of "unequal treatment" or "discrimination" is also inapt to the analysis of the alleged anti-competitive strategy. Having examined the tests that, under Article 102, could apply to the alleged conduct, the paper concludes that the refusal to supply test appears to provide the closest analogy for its assessment under Article 102 TFEU.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know