Following the Commission’s Decision, the Turkish Competition Board also Fined Google

October 2018 Elif Mungan
% 0

Introduction

Following the European Commission’s (“Commission”) Google decision concerning Android mobile devices, the Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) also rendered a similar decision. On 18 July 2018 the Commission fined Google €4.34 billion on the grounds that Google has imposed illegal restrictions on Android device manufacturers and mobile network operators to cement its dominant position in general internet searches[1]. In addition to the fine, the decision requires Google to end its illegal conduct within 90 days from the date of the decision, or bear penalty payments. Thus, the Commission has come to an end of a three-year examination, thereby creating an important precedent for other authorities around the world. In its decision dated 19 September 2018, the Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) has fined Google LLC, Google International LLC, and Google Reklamcılık ve Pazarlama Ltd. Şti. (“Google Economic Unity”), severally, 93,083,422.30 TL, on the grounds that Google Economic Unity breached the abuse of dominance rules set forth under Article 6 of the Act on Protection of Competition No. 4054 (“Competition Act”) by imposing illegal restrictions on device manufacturers[2]. The decision also requires Google Economic Unity to modify its contracts with device manufacturers in line with the Board’s decision, and notify the Competition Authority of such modifications within 6 months from the notification of the reasoned decision.

Commission Decision

The Commission has determined that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system.

In its decision, the Commission has defined Google’s illegal actions, as follows:

  • Illegal Tying of Google’s Search and Browser Apps: According to the decision, Google required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google"s app store (the Play Store).
  • Illegal Payments Conditional on Exclusive Pre-installation of Google Search: According to the decision, Google made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on the condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices.
  • Illegal Obstruction of Development and Distribution of Competing Android Operating Systems: According to the decision, Google has prevented manufacturers that wanted to pre-install Google apps from selling even one single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google ("Android forks").

The Commission has concluded that the three abuse forms listed above are parts of Google’s strategy of cementing its dominant position in the general search engine market. The effects of the relevant strategy are listed in the decision. According to the decision, firstly, the illegal practices obstruct rival search engines’ ability to compete. Secondly, the tying practices ensured the pre-installation of Google"s search engine and browser on practically all Google Android devices, and the exclusivity payments strongly reduced the incentive to pre-install competing search engines. In addition, Google hindered the development of Android forks. Furthermore, Google’s strategy obstructed other search engines from collecting more data from smart phones, and that enabled Google to strengthen its dominant position as a search engine. Lastly, the Commission evaluated the effects of Google’s practices in the wider mobile space, since these illegal practices have prevented other mobile browsers from competing, effectively. Similarly, Google’s limitation with regard to Android forks, which has obstructed other platforms’ development, has negated other app developers’ ability to thrive.

Board Decision

Although the reasoned Board decision has not yet been published, the Board’s press release is indicative in terms of the grounds for the decision.

In line with the Commission decision, the Board has also determined that Google Economic Entity is dominant in the market for “licensable smart mobile operating systems.” The Board did not define “general internet search services” and “app stores for the Android mobile operating system” markets in the Turkish market.

Google Economic Entity’s illegal actions that have been fined in the Board decision are mainly with regard to the illegal tying of Google’s search apps. According to the decision, the implementations Google employed that have been found to be illegal, are as follows:

  • According to the Mobile Implementation Distribution Contracts signed with the manufacturers, Google search shall be the “default search engine,” and the Google search engine shall be the “homepage.”
  • Google Webview shall be the default, and the only component for the relevant function.
  • According to the Income Share Contracts, the Google search shall be exclusively downloaded into the devices.

The Board stated that the other Google implementations set forth under Mobile Implementation Distribution Contracts are not in breach with Article 6 of the Competition Act. On the other hand, in order to provide publicity and avoid the future possible competition concerns for the contractor device manufacturers, the Authority presidency is to send an opinion letter to the Google Economic Entity regarding the inclusion of an explicit article into the Mobile Implementation Distribution Contracts, stating that the pre-installation of rival apps and implementations, along with Google apps, are not restricted.

According to the decision, Google Economic Unity shall also modify its contracts with device manufacturers in line with the Board’s decision.

Conclusion

The press release of the Board decision indicates that the main illegal action determined in the Turkish case is the illegal tying of Google Economic Entity’s search apps. The Google Economic Entity’s actions have been found to be illegal, since it ties its Google search apps to its services in the licensable smart mobile operating systems market.

Consequently, Google’s fined implementations are similar in the Commission and Board decisions; however, the Turkish press release is not sufficient to assist us in comparing the relevant decisions; for example, the press release does not address whether Google Economic Entity has made illegal payments to be conditional on exclusive pre-installation of Google Search, as it is so determined in the Commission decision. In any event, both of the Authorities determinations of illegal actions overlap, and we will be able to finalize the full comparison after the reasoned decisions are rendered.

[1] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm (Access date: 18.10.2018).

[2] http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/tr/Guncel/google-llc-google-international-llc-ve-g-e89449b5dbbce81180e300505694b4c6 (Access date: 18.10.2018).

All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.

Other Contents

Newsletter Articles
The French Competition Authority’s Decision on Meta’s Commitments

The French Competition Authority (Autorité de la Concurrence), within the scope of the competition law proceeding initiated upon the complaint of Criteo SA (“Criteo”), accepted the commitments proposed by Meta Platforms Inc., Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd., and Facebook France...

Competition Law 31.07.2022
Newsletter Articles
A Different Approach to Monetrary Fines for Hindering On-Site Inspection: The Decision of the Ankara II. Administrative Court

While the scope of Competition Board’s (“Board”) power to conduct on-site inspections has increased with the introduction of Guidelines on Examination of Digital Data during On-site Inspections (“Guidelines”), nowadays the amount of monetary fines imposed on undertakings continue to...

Competition Law 31.07.2022
Newsletter Articles
Hub and Spoke Cartel in Comparative Law

The hub and spoke cartel, which is a relatively new type of violation in terms of Turkish competition law, is defined as the indirect exchange of information between two independent undertakings which are horizontal competitors on the supplier or retailer level, through another undertaking...

Competition Law April 2022
Newsletter Articles
The First Settlement Case in Turkish Competition Law

The settlement mechanism has only recently been introduced to Turkish competition law practice. It entered into force with the amendment made to the Law on the Protection of Competition (“Law”) numbered 4054 on 16.06.2020, and has been in effect for less than two years. In this relatively...

Competition Law April 2022
Newsletter Articles
The E-Marketplace Platforms Sector Inquiry Final Report and What It Brings

Due to their increasing share in the economy and rapid growth rate, e-marketplace platforms have come under the increasing scrutiny of the Turkish Competition Authority (“Authority”) as well as many competition authorities around the world...

Competition Law April 2022
Newsletter Articles
Amendments Introduced to the Communique Concerning the Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring Competition Board’s Approval

Pursuant to the Amendment Communiqué Concerning the Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring the Competition Board’s Approval (“Amending Communiqué”) published in the Official Gazette dated March 4th, 2022 and numbered 31768, certain amendments have been introduced...

Competition Law March 2022
Newsletter Articles
A New Glance at Online Sales: The Competition Board’s BSH Decision

The Competition Board (“Board”) has recently published a reasoned decision in which it evaluated BSH Ev Aletleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.’s (“BSH”) request for negative clearance or exemption with regard to its practice of prohibiting authorized dealers from making sales through online marketplaces...

Competition Law March 2022
Newsletter Articles
E-Marketplace Platforms Industry Review Preliminary Report Part 2: “Shahmaran’s Story”

Shahmaran, a Mesopotamian myth, is believed to take place in Tarsus. According to the myth, the shah of snakes is the immortal and omniscient "Shahmaran." Shahmaran is described as a beautiful woman living in her cave with her snakes...

Competition Law February 2022
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
The Effects of the Recent Decision by the Turkish Competition Board on Market Chains and Their Suppliers

During the COVID-19 pandemic, competitive concerns about the pricing behavior of chain markets, manufacturers, and wholesalers engaged in the retail trade of food and cleaning supplies led to an investigation by...

Competition Law January 2022
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Hub and Spoke Cartels
Competition Law November 2021
Newsletter Articles
E-Marketplace Platforms Industry Review Preliminary Report Part 1: “Captain, an object is approaching”

Digitalization, in particular, necessitates the rewriting of competition law rules. Competition law is at the center all questions regarding e-commerce and digital platforms. The aforementioned platforms, which have become prominent due to innovations in...

Competition Law November 2021
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Settlement Regulation Enters into Force
Competition Law July 2021
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
The New Cartel Decision of the Competition Board
Competition Law September 2020
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
The File of Sahibinden.com; A Phoenix Story
Competition Law February 2020
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Second Stage in Facebook File
Competition Law September 2019
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Excessive Pricing
Competition Law June 2017
Newsletter Articles
Amazon Decision and E-Book Commitments
Competition Law June 2017
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Tüpraş Decision and the Rebate Systems
Competition Law September 2016
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Booking.com Decision
Competition Law January 2017
Newsletter Articles
Price / Margin Squeeze
Competition Law November 2016
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles

For creative legal solutions, please contact us.