Streetmap.EU Ltd v Google Inc. & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a preliminary issue trial regarding an alleged abuse of a dominant position in breach of UK and EU competition law. The claimant, successor to the rights of Company A, provides online mapping services in Great Britain, having acquired these rights following the voluntary liquidation of its predecessor, which it alleges was caused by the defendants' conduct. The primary defendant, Company B, operates the most popular global online search engine and launched its own online mapping product in 2005. The dispute centers on whether Company B abused its dominant position in the market for general online search engines by prominently and preferentially displaying its own online map product in search results, thereby disadvantaging competing online map providers such as Company A.

The case was directed to be tried on the assumption that Company B holds a dominant position in the relevant market. The trial was streamlined by the claimant narrowing its allegations, and involved factual and expert witnesses from both sides, including economic experts who presented joint oral evidence. The court considered evidence on the nature of online search engines and online maps, the development and features of the defendant's search engine results page (SERP), and the impact of the defendant's "Maps OneBox" feature introduced in 2007, which displayed a clickable thumbnail map exclusively from Company B's own mapping service.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Company B, by displaying a clickable thumbnail map from its own mapping service prominently and exclusively on its general search engine results page, abused its dominant position under UK and EU competition law.
2. Whether such conduct had or was reasonably likely to have an appreciable anti-competitive effect in the market for online maps.
3. Whether Company B's conduct was objectively justified, including consideration of less anti-competitive alternatives.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Company A contended that Company B abused its dominant position by preferentially displaying its own online map product via the Maps OneBox at a prime position on the SERP, thereby restricting competition from other online map providers.
• The claimant characterized the conduct as discriminatory rather than traditional bundling or tying, emphasizing that the exclusive visual prominence given to Company B's map disadvantaged competitors irrespective of their intrinsic merits.
• Company A argued that the Maps OneBox's exclusive use of Company B's map thumbnail distorted competition because it pushed competing providers' links lower down the page, reducing their visibility and user engagement.
• The claimant proposed alternatives, including displaying multiple map thumbnails from different providers or allowing users to select their preferred map provider, and later focused on a "Links Alternative" whereby shortcut hyperlinks to competing maps would accompany the thumbnail map.
• Company A submitted that Company B's conduct was not objectively justified and that feasible, less anti-competitive alternatives existed that Company B failed to implement.

Appellee's Arguments

• Company B denied dominance for the purpose of the trial but accepted the assumption for procedural efficiency.
• It argued that the Maps OneBox improved the quality of the search engine results by providing users with direct, relevant information, thereby benefiting consumers and competition.
• Company B contended that users remained free to use other mapping services and that the conduct did not constitute bundling or tying in the traditional legal sense.
• It submitted that the exclusive display of its own map was objectively justified as a technical efficiency, improving user experience with minimal latency and high accuracy.
• Company B challenged the claimant's proposed alternatives on grounds of technical complexity, latency issues, potential degradation of user experience, and disproportionate costs.
• It further argued that the evidence did not establish a reasonably likely appreciable anti-competitive effect on the market for online maps.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the rapid development of the internet and the challenges posed to competition law in applying traditional concepts to new digital markets. It accepted the assumption that Company B was dominant in the market for general online search engines and proceeded to assess whether the defendant's conduct constituted abuse.

The claimant alleged that Company B abused its dominance by exclusively displaying a clickable thumbnail map from its own mapping service at or near the top of the SERP, thereby disadvantaging competing online map providers. The court recognized that the conduct was not bundling or tying in the traditional legal sense, as users were not obligated to use the defendant's map.

The court considered the classic definitions of abuse and the principle that a dominant undertaking has a special responsibility not to impair undistorted competition. It acknowledged that abuse may occur through leveraging dominance in one market to affect competition in a related market.

Regarding foreclosure, the court defined it as conduct by a dominant firm that hinders competitors' access to customers or inputs by means other than competition on the merits. The relevant input here was the promotion afforded by display on the SERP.

On the issue of effect, the court applied established case law to conclude that the claimant must prove that the conduct was reasonably likely to have an appreciable anti-competitive effect in the market for online maps, given that Company B was not dominant in that market. The court rejected the claimant's submission that any anti-competitive effect, however small, would suffice.

The court analyzed extensive evidence, including a pre-launch "live experiment" conducted by Company B in the US, data on user click-through rates, market growth trends, and expert economic analyses. It found that while the new-style Maps OneBox was more attractive to users than the old-style, it was triggered less frequently and did not increase overall clicks to Company B's maps compared to the old version. The evidence did not establish that the new-style Maps OneBox had an appreciable foreclosure effect on competitors.

Further, the court noted that Company B's mapping product was technologically more advanced than competitors' offerings, which explained its market success on the merits. It also found that a significant portion of traffic to competing providers came from direct access or third-party websites, not through general search queries.

On the question of intent, the court found that Company B's primary objective in introducing the new Maps OneBox was to improve its general search engine's quality, not to foreclose competitors.

Regarding objective justification, the court accepted that presenting a thumbnail map on the SERP was a technical efficiency benefiting users. It then considered whether less anti-competitive alternatives proposed by the claimant were feasible and proportionate.

The court examined the "Links Alternative"—adding shortcut links to competing maps below the thumbnail—and found it was not an effective solution because the claimant's main complaint was the exclusive visual prominence of the thumbnail map itself. Additionally, implementing such dynamic links would be complex, costly, and problematic across different jurisdictions and queries.

The court also considered alternative technical solutions proposed by the claimant's expert, including multiple thumbnails or user selection of maps, but accepted Company B's evidence that these would introduce latency, degrade user experience, require significant technical development, and impose disproportionate burdens.

Ultimately, the court concluded that Company B's conduct was objectively justified and proportionate given the technical efficiencies and practical difficulties of alternatives.

Accordingly, on the evidence and legal principles, the court found no abuse of dominance by Company B.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The court held that, assuming Company B's dominance in the general online search market, its conduct in displaying a clickable thumbnail map exclusively from its own mapping service on the search results page did not constitute an abuse of dominant position. The conduct was not reasonably likely to have an appreciable anti-competitive effect in the market for online maps and was objectively justified as a technical efficiency. The claimant's proposed less restrictive alternatives were not viable or proportionate.

The direct effect of this decision is the dismissal of the claimant's abuse of dominance claim. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing competition law principles to the facts. The ruling underscores the importance of demonstrating both a serious anti-competitive effect and lack of objective justification in abuse of dominance claims involving multi-sided digital markets and related products.