Antitrust: European Commission vs Google: Opera, Nokia and Gigaset allies of Google

In an unexpected way (at least for me), Opera, Nokia and Gigaset are “teaming up” with Google, against the European Commission.

This thread is somehow a fork of I deemed the topic deserved its own thread. Thank you @Rik for your input in that other thread.

Small summary. In July 2018, the European Commission fines Google €4.34 billion for illegal practices regarding Android mobile devices to strengthen dominance of Google’s search engine.

Later, as Rik mentioned:

On 23 September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union decided which entities can “fight” for the appeal on the side of Google, and which other entities can fight with the European Commission. Link to the European Court of Justice

On the side of Google, among others: Gigaset, Nokia (HMD) and Opera

The following excerpts are of particular intersest to me. Warning: those descriptions of the reality might rely on a bias possibly very different from yours…

Item 21 (items are referenced on the page of the Court of Justice linked above): “Threat” by Google:

On 16 October 2018, Google announced the various measures envisaged to put an end to the practices fined by the Commission pending the judgment of the General Court. In particular, Google stated that, in so far as the pre-installation of Google Search and Chrome together with its other apps helped fund the development and free distribution of Android, a new paid licensing agreement was to be introduced from the end of the month of October 2018 for the distribution of Android devices within the European Economic Area (EEA) and separate licenses were to be offered for Google Search and for Chrome.

Item 101 about Gigaset:

As far as Gigaset, whose smart mobile devices all use the Android mobile operating system, is concerned, it submits that its economic activity is directly affected by the Decision. The fact that Android is high-quality, reliable and free and the possibility to obtain access to a complete suite of apps including Google Play (Play Store), Google Search and Chrome at no cost are crucial to the commercial success of its products. Gigaset also submits that it entered into three types of agreement (MAFA, AFA and RSA) with Google, which include, according to the Commission, the restrictions at issue. In that context, Gigaset notes that the abuses found and the requirement that Google bring those restrictions to an end within 90 days of the notification of the Decision have significant consequences for its activity both in terms of its contractual obligations, in particular those of a financial nature, and in terms of the increased risk of fragmentation of the Android platforms.

Item 102 about Nokia (technically HMD):

Similarly, HMD, more than 60% of whose net sales were accounted for in 2018 by smart mobile devices using Android, submits that its economic activity is directly affected by the Decision. The commercial strategy of that undertaking involves offering a ‘clean’ version of Android on its devices, comprising that operating system and apps offered by Google (Google Mobile Services app suite), without any other software being added initially to that combination. This enables HMD to update its devices continuously and securely. The free and open nature of Android and Android’s platform-wide compatibility are therefore critical for the commercial development of HMD, allowing it to devote its resources to manufacturing premium devices, rather than having to develop and maintain software in parallel. By characterising certain provisions of the agreements entered into by HMD with Google (MADA and AFA) as abusive, the Decision challenges that ‘ecosystem’ which is beneficial to HMD. HMD’s situation will also be affected by the amendments to those agreements within the EEA as a result of the Decision, with those amendments challenging the essential elements of HMD’s commercial strategy. For that undertaking, the slightest increase in the costs of production will have a particularly detrimental impact on its competitiveness in a highly competitive sector. Similarly, the proliferation of ‘forked’ Android versions as a result of the Decision could lead to a greater degree of unnecessary and unfortunate fragmentation with the result that certain apps would no longer be compatible across the entire Android platform. HMD also invokes its active participation in the administrative procedure.

Item 103 about Opera:

As far as Opera is concerned, it submits that the Android operating system is crucial for its economic activity. Opera states, first, that it has developed a web browser to compete with Google Chrome and an app called Opera News, both of which are available on the Android platform. It also notes that, in 2018, 70 to 80% of its mobile users used Android. In that context, Opera submits that the availability of this free and high-quality system enables manufacturers to develop and deploy their devices and developers to offer their apps. The open nature of this system has also allowed Opera to innovate and to offer different versions of its search engine. For Opera, such opportunities could not have existed without Google taking the risk and devoting significant resources to the development of Android and Google Play. Similarly, unlike Apple’s mobile operating system iOS, which only allows apps to be downloaded, Android allows Opera to pre-install them if it can reach an agreement with a device manufacturer. Opera states in that regard that pre-installation alone accounts for 30% of new users. In this context, by harming the essential elements of the Android ‘ecosystem’ and therefore the elements searched for by Opera users, the Decision directly affects the activity of that undertaking. A return to the situation prior to the Decision is necessary for Opera, which could thus continue to benefit from the attractiveness of the Android platform and from the previously proposed business model. For Opera, there is a risk that the increase in costs relating to the implementation of the Decision will drive certain device manufacturers out of the market, in particular those who have, so far, pushed down prices and offered it the best opportunities to pre-install its apps. Opera also invokes its active participation in the administrative procedure.

This is appalling. It radically changes my vision of those 3 companies.


Mine too. There are some blatant lies and manipulations in those statements.

Plot thickens, let’s see what comes out of this… If Google manages to get even more big companies on their side might have a shot, but at the same time the arguments made are not gonna cut it. Hope the EC stays strong about this.


Me too. Hope they cut G00gl up, Alphabet is in violation of the US anti-trust laws the EU anti-cartel regulations, so let’s cut it in to peaces.

1 Like

wow, thanks for this information @waluwaz . It would indeed be terrible if the judge made a decision only based on this biased information. @Manoj , perhaps it would be a good idea to discuss with the /e/ team if it is possible to write an official letter from /e/ to the judge about this?

1 Like

We did have some communication with EU authorities at the highest levels some time back. The EU is already doing a lot more than other agencies or Governments across the world. It is thanks to them that to some extent a control exists on the abusive practices of Google and other such conglomerates.

thanks again for your great work on this @waluwaz . How did you find this out?? For info: i just wrote to my contact at the European Parliament who has been helping me with this the following:

I have a follow-up question. I’m hoping you can also help me with this. In Google’s appeal it is possible for organisations to support Google in their appeal (e.g. HMD, Gigaset, Opera) and for others to support the EC:

It may be interesting for us to write a letter to support the case of the EC, especially because we have seen that the information that Google and their supporters describe here is particularly biased and regularly factually incorrect. My question is: is it still possible to submit such a letter at this time? And if so, to whom should we do that? (we could write as “/e/ users” or the /e/ team could write it if they decide to do so)

Translated with (free version)

This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.