With Judgement No. 8398/2025, published on 29 October 2025, the Administrative Court of Appeal (“Consiglio di Stato”) substantially confirmed the decision of the Italian Antitrust Authority (“AGCM”), which sanctioned Google for abuse of dominant position in relation to Google’s refusal to make the JuicePass app developed by Enel X Italia available on the Android Auto platform.
The AGCM had fined Google EUR 102 million.
Google’s refusal to make JuicePass available to Android Auto users had been considered by the AGCM as an unjustified abuse of its gatekeeper role with respect to the Android Auto platform. Android Auto is a feature that allows end users to interact with certain apps on their mobile devices while vehicles are in motion, ensuring higher safety standards. In contrast to the system developed through JuicePass, Google Maps does not allow the electric charging point to be booked directly from the driver’s seat.
The Authority had considered that the effective use of JuicePass depended on the possibility of using it easily and safely while driving, and that the success of the app depended on its availability on Android Auto, access to which could only be granted by Google.
Google challenged the AGCM’s measure before the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio (“T.A.R.”) Lazio which, under ruling No. 10147/2022, rejected the appeal in its entirety. Google appealed against this ruling before the Consiglio di Stato. The latter referred a number of questions of interpretation to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU, on which the Court ruled on 25 February 2025 (Case C-233/23)
The Court of Justice clarified that refusing to ensure interoperability of a digital platform may constitute an abuse of a dominant position – even if the platform is not essential for the commercial exploitation of the application – provided that it makes it more appealing to consumers, and it must not have been developed solely for the purposes of the dominant undertaking’s own business purposes.
This principle represents an evolution from traditional case law. The Court noted that the conditions set out in Bronner were justified by the circumstances of that case, which involved a refusal to grant access to infrastructure developed for the undertaking’s own business needs. Where a dominant undertaking has developed infrastructure with a view to allowing use by third parties, the condition of indispensability does not apply in the sense that there is no actual or potential substitute.
The Court also ruled that the dominant undertaking may invoke, as an objective justification, the non-existence of an interoperability model only when this would compromise the integrity or security of the platform, or when it would be technically impossible to develop it. Otherwise, the company is obliged to develop such a model within a reasonable time frame.
The Court of Justice clarified that, when assessing whether a refusal by a dominant undertaking to ensure interoperability between an application developed by a third party and its digital platform constitutes abuse, a competition authority may limit its analysis to identifying the downstream market where such a refusal is likely to produce anticompetitive effects – even if that market is only a potential one – and this does not necessarily require a precise definition of the relevant product and geographic market.
On the basis of these principles, the Consiglio di Stato found that Google held a dominant position in the Android and Google Play markets, and that Android Auto constituted an extension of the Android system onto the car infotainment system. Access to Android Auto was considered necessary so that Enel X could offer end users apps that could be used easily and safely while driving.
According to the Council of State, Google’s refusal was not supported by any real objective justification, even when considering the timeframe necessary for implementation.
The Consiglio di Stato held that the continued presence of Enel X and certain competitors in the market did not preclude the refusal of access from being capable of producing anticompetitive effects. The JuicePass app was excluded from the Android Auto platform for the whole of 2020 and the first few months of 2021, during a period of strong growth in sales of electric vehicles. The exclusion was materially likely to result in limiting Enel X’s possibilities of building its user base.
The Consiglio di Stato also confirmed that electronic charging service apps and navigation apps are linked by a competitive relationship in terms of actual competition (search and navigation functions), potential competition (charging management and payment functions) and competition for users and data.
However, the Consiglio di Stato partially upheld the appeal, limited to the quantification of the penalty, and ordered the AGCM to recalculate the amount by considering the actual duration of the infringement (up to 5 April 2021, the date the final template was issued) and by adequately justifying the determination of the relevant sales value.
The Consiglio di Stato emphasised that the economic-commercial aspect of the platform and the purpose for which it was designed are relevant, confirming that Android Auto is designed to enable the use of applications developed by third parties.
According to Consiglio di Stato, the effects of the alleged abuse affect not only consumer welfare, but also market structure and may hinder innovation in e-mobility services, thereby affecting the development of an industry at a crucial start-up phase.
For more information, please contact:
Federico Marini Balestra, Partner, Bird & Bird
federico.marinibalestra@twobirds.com
