Maria Ana Pocas Lourenco on Self-preferencing and EU Competition Law

Self-preferencing is a very topical issue in EU competition law, arguably because it reflects a broader shift in enforcement. Its relevance can be traced back to the landmark Google Shopping case, where the Commission found that Google abused its dominant position by favouring its own comparison shopping service over competitors in search results. The Commission and the EU Courts treated this as an independent form of abuse, but it remains unclear in which situations self-preferencing constitutes an abuse under Article 102 TFEU and when preferential treatment is not caught by the prohibition.
Similar questions have re-emerged with the Commission’s decision in Google AdTech (AT.40670), now under appeal before the General Court (Case T-794/25), which may provide further clarification. More broadly, self-preferencing matters because it sits close to other forms of abusive conduct (such as refusal to supply or margin squeeze) while potentially being assessed under different legal “templates”. Finally, it is central in digital markets and is also addressed by regulation: the Digital Markets Act introduces a per se prohibition for designated gatekeepers.

I am focusing on how the case law of the EU Courts has relied on the concept of ‘competition on the merits’ to reconcile different philosophies of intervention that have informed the application of Article 102 TFEU over time, thereby shaping its scope. Self-preferencing is particularly relevant to my research because it raises complex questions about the notion of abuse under Article 102 TFEU and the contemporary meaning of competition on the merits.
While self-preferencing has emerged prominently in the context of digital markets, its legal significance extends beyond that context. The way in which self-preferencing has been addressed by the European Commission and the EU Courts has the potential to recalibrate the threshold of intervention under Article 102 TFEU more broadly, influencing the concept of abuse across a wide range of market settings. As such, self-preferencing is a valuable lens to examine (still ongoing) shifts in the interpretation and application of Article 102 TFEU.

From a research perspective, I am particularly interested in hearing the speakers’ opinions on the legal categorisation of self-preferencing under Article 102 TFEU, and how it relates with previously established practices, namely refusal to supply and tying. In this respect, I am curious to see whether self-preferencing is regarded as a logical and coherent ‘new’ legal test under Article 102 TFEU, or whether it instead signals an undue further compartmentalisation of the concept of abuse.
In this train of thought, I would be particularly interested to hear whether the speakers find it convincing that the Bronner conditions do not apply to self-preferencing and, in that respect, what this may imply for the future of Bronner in the EU Courts’ case law. This question becomes even more intriguing in light of the recent judgements Lukoil Bulgaria and Android Auto.
In a similar vein, it would be interesting to see discussed how the Commission’s approach to remedies has changed, in particular when comparing its much-contested approach in Google Shopping (where it imposed Google to comply with the principle of non-discrimination) with Google AdTech, in which the Commission has indicated that structural remedies may be necessary.
More generally, I am very interested to see how the speakers conceive the concept of competition on the merits in contemporary case law, in particular how they place it the form- effects-based debate. Along the same lines, I would be very glad to hear whether the speakers consider that enforcement in the digital markets has promoted a new ‘paradigm’ or ‘philosophy of intervention’ in EU competition law, potentially leaning away from a predominantly welfarist-centred logic to a more fairness-oriented one. Still on this point, it would be interesting to see addressed the recent geopolitical developments, and whether this ‘new’ trend, if deemed to exist, may itself be under threat.

I believe that the LCEL is an ideal place to conduct research in EU law, under the guidance of some of the most prominent scholars in the field, in an environment that is both supportive and intellectually stimulating, and where researchers are given the opportunity to participate in a wide range of very engaging academic events. As the Centre regularly hosts seminars and conferences, it offers continuous opportunities to learn and exchange ideas.
I am very glad and fortunate being able to pursue my doctoral research in a centre that provides all the necessary conditions to develop my work, in an environment where I feel supported both academically and personally. As the PhD journey can at times feel a bit lonely, being embedded in such a research community is invaluable.