Extract
[...] The Apple case is an illustration of what constitutes an abuse of dominant position. In fact, the Court of Appeal, in agreement with the Competition Authority, retained Apple's abusive dominant position on the digital market through several probative elements. In fact, in its decision, the Competition Authority notes that Apple has favored the supply of its points of sale before supplying those of its independent distributors, which has created a disadvantage for the latter, who were deprived of stocks, while being economically dependent on the sale of these products. [...]
[...] The analysis of the anticompetitive agreement through the Apple case In the digital market world, anticompetitive agreements are multiplied in order to eliminate new actors. On the other hand, as illustrated by the Apple case, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between cooperation between two actors and the coordination that constitutes an anticompetitive agreement In the context of the practice of an agreement, it is necessary to take into account the harmful effects of the latter on the market A. [...]
[...] In fact, these latter have a reduced volume of products and less favorable delivery times than the Apple store itself. Thus, this pushes away customers and distributors, whose turnover is essentially composed of profits related to Apple products, are in a critical economic situation. Independent distributors are crushed competitively by Apple. The absence of fair and equitable competition leads to a reduction of alternatives for consumers. This situation, in the long term, can lead to a market blockage because it stops innovation, which is one of the essential factors of economic growth. [...]
[...] In fact, it is difficult to arrive on a market where agreements between all companies are made on both sides because it is almost impossible, in this context, to get out on top. In this case, Apple, by implementing these agreements, reinforces its dominant position on the market. In fact, Apple being a digital giant, its place on the market is already predominant. Thus, by engaging in this type of anti-competitive practice, Apple eliminates any potential entry of new competitors. [...]
[...] In principle, it is not illegal as long as the latter does not have the effect or object of harming the free play of competition. On the other hand, abuse of dominant position is an anticompetitive practice that aims, for giants, to exclude their competitors from the market, particularly by using their dominant position against them. It is these two practices that were reproached to Apple in the case judged by the Paris Court of Appeal on October In fact, this case perfectly illustrates the strength of the GAFAM and, in this case, of Apple, on the market, which can thus harm it. [...]
