/
Article 102 TFEU Dominance and Abuses
Save to my account
Sign up
Article 102 TFEU Dominance and Abuses
Article 102 TFEU Dominance and Abuses
Study
1
Question
What defines a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU?
Answer
Ability to sustainably raise prices without losing significant market share
2
Question
How is market power shorthand described for dominance?
Answer
Profitably raising prices over a sustained period
3
Question
What primary factor indicates market power in dominance assessment?
Answer
Market share of the undertaking under investigation
4
Question
What market share threshold presumes dominance per CJEU?
Answer
50% or more, unless exceptional circumstances
5
Question
What burden does a firm face with 50%+ market share?
Answer
Rebut presumption by showing no market power
6
Question
Why is market share a useful initial indicator of dominance?
Answer
Reflects ability to act independently of competition
7
Question
What role do existing competitors' shares play in dominance assessment?
Answer
Indicate competitive constraints on the dominant firm
8
Question
How does market concentration affect dominance evaluation?
Answer
Higher concentration suggests stronger market power
9
Question
What do barriers to entry reveal about potential dominance?
Answer
High barriers limit new competition, enhancing power
10
Question
How does customer bargaining power influence dominance assessment?
Answer
Strong buyers can constrain dominant firm's actions
11
Question
What market characteristic suggests low dominance risk?
Answer
Dynamic and immature market with evolving competition
12
Question
In Google's defense, what factor challenges dominance finding?
Answer
Presence of actual competitors like Yahoo and Yandex
13
Question
How might Google argue against barriers to entry?
Answer
No conduct-imposed barriers; new entrants free to enter
14
Question
What bargaining power argument could Google use?
Answer
Users have genuine choice via alternative search engines
15
Question
How does market dynamics help Google's non-dominance claim?
Answer
Evolving market with innovations allows merit-based gains
16
Question
What defines exploitative abuse under Article 102 TFEU?
Answer
Dominant firm imposes unfair conditions harming consumers directly
17
Question
What is the most common exploitative abuse type?
Answer
Excessive pricing above competitive levels
18
Question
How does excessive pricing harm consumer welfare?
Answer
Reduces choices by charging unsustainable high prices
19
Question
What two-step test assesses excessive pricing per CJEU?
Answer
Price unfair in itself and compared to competitors
20
Question
Why can't traditional excessive pricing test apply to Facebook directly?
Answer
No monetary fee; users access platform free
21
Question
How is user data treated in Facebook's exploitative abuse analysis?
Answer
Non-monetary consideration equivalent to payment
22
Question
What imbalance drives Facebook's data practices as abusive?
Answer
Users lack alternatives, compelling acceptance of terms
23
Question
Why is user consent to Facebook's data policy not voluntary?
Answer
Dominance creates no real choice; acceptance or exclusion
24
Question
What makes Facebook's data collection unfair trading conditions?
Answer
Unlimited data merging from multiple sources without control
25
Question
How does economic coercion apply to Facebook user agreements?
Answer
Acceptance pressured by social exclusion alternative
26
Question
What defines exclusionary abuse under Article 102 TFEU?
Answer
Excluding competitors indirectly, reducing pressure on dominant firm
27
Question
Why are exclusionary abuses pursued more frequently than exploitative?
Answer
Easier to prove long-term harm to market structure
28
Question
What first test applies to exclusionary conduct?
Answer
Conduct other than merits capable of excluding competitors
29
Question
What second test assesses exclusionary abuse impact?
Answer
Exclusion likely harms consumer welfare like higher prices
30
Question
What is a common exclusionary abuse involving contracts?
Answer
Exclusive dealing agreements limiting competitor access