Google's restrictions on Android Auto could violate EU competition rules, court adviser warns

It appears that Google's restrictions on its Android Auto platform may grossly violate the EU competition laws, a fact supported by an ECJ adviser. The opinion aligns with the position of Italy’s antitrust authority that has charged Google with operating as a monopoly. In 2021, it emerged that Italy’s competition authority had fined Google 102 million euros (USD 113. 2 million) for allegedly preventing Enel’s JuicePass app from accessing Android Auto. JuicePass is an e-mobility app that enables the drivers to use maps and even send messages through their automobile dashboard.

The Court Advocate General Laila Medina has suggested that Google could be in violation of competition laws. She contended that if a dominant undertaking deprives or inhibits a third-party app from accessing its relevant platform and if such conduct produces anti-competitive effects that are prejudicial to consumers, such conduct may be qualified as abuse of a dominant position unless can be justified on objective grounds.

Google has supported this move by claiming that there is insecurity and there is no standard on how to include JuicePass in the Android Auto interface. The company has appealed the fine to Italy’s Council of State, but it has also reportedly worked to fix the problem by designing a template for Enel and has made similar apps available on Android Auto around the world.

This was the response of a Google spokesperson to the outcome of the consultation: “We have taken note of the opinion of the Advocate General and now await the judgment of the Court." "Since the starting of the case, we have tried to adapt the template that Enel asked for, and there are many similar apps available on Android Auto around the world now.”

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is expected to deliver its ruling in the coming months. In this particular case, the opinion of the Advocate General is not mandatory but rather a recommendation. The specific case is C-233/23 Alphabet and Others.