Microsoft Corp v Commission
Microsoft abused its dominance by refusing to supply interoperability information to rival work group server makers, and by tying Windows Media Player to the Windows operating system.
Facts
The European Commission found that Microsoft, which held a dominant position in the market for PC operating systems, had abused its position by refusing to supply competitors with the information they needed to enable their work group server operating systems to interoperate with Windows, and by tying its Windows Media Player to the Windows operating system. It fined Microsoft 497 million euros and ordered it to disclose the interoperability information and to offer a version of Windows without Media Player.
Legal principle
The General Court upheld the Commission's findings of abuse. On the refusal to supply, the court held that the exceptional circumstances identified in the case law were present, because the information was indispensable for competitors to compete viably in the work group server market, the refusal was liable to eliminate effective competition, and it limited technical development to the prejudice of consumers, the new product condition being satisfied by the limitation of technical development. On tying, the court held that the products were distinct, that consumers could not obtain Windows without Media Player, that the tying foreclosed competition in media players, and that it was not objectively justified.
Related cases on dominance and exclusionary abuse
- Europemballage Corp and Continental Can Co Inc v Commission Case 6/72, [1973] ECR 215
- Google LLC and Alphabet Inc v Commission (Google Shopping) Case C-48/22 P, EU:C:2024:726
- Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Commission Case 85/76, [1979] ECR 461
- Intel Corp v Commission Case C-413/14 P, EU:C:2017:632
- Meta Platforms Inc v Bundeskartellamt Case C-252/21, EU:C:2023:537
- Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Ltd v Director General of Fair Trading [2002] CAT 1, [2002] Comp AR 13
- Nederlandsche Banden-Industrie Michelin NV v Commission (Michelin I) Case 322/81, [1983] ECR 3461
- Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet (Post Danmark I) Case C-209/10, EU:C:2012:172
Studying competition law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
