Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract The debate surrounding the application of European Union competition law to online platforms so far has predominantly focused on identifying anti-competitive practices. The design of corresponding remedies has been far less explored, although it is of equal importance to practice. In the absence of effective remedies, the mere identification of anti-competitive practices can do little to protect competition. Given the difficulties associated with identifying competition law infringements by online platforms, there is no reason to assume that the design of remedies intended to tackle the effects of such infringements will be straightforward. Therefore, this article aims to show the intricacies of designing effective remedies for Article 102 TFEU infringements by online platforms based on the case study of tying and bundling practices. In this process, the article clarifies the importance of incorporating restorative measures in competition law remedies that may require opting for structural interventions, which are difficult to impose under the scope of Regulation 1/2003. The article offers three potential options to overcome such difficulties within the ambit of this regulation, namely through the strategic use of interim measures, the introduction of flexible remedies, and the incorporation of the regulatory restraints of the Digital Markets Act.
Daniel Mândrescu (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: