Federal Court of Justice strengthens Federal Cartel Office in the battle against Google's market power.

The competition authorities can breathe a sigh of relief, as the Federal Court of Justice has strengthened their position: Google material may be passed on to rival companies to investigate suspicions of anticompetitive practices. Although the court did not grant the Federal Cartel Office the right in every respect, the interests of the authority usually prevailed over Google's desire for confidentiality of corporate secrets. The Office was largely given the green light to pass on selected documents to the specialists from TomTom and Cerence, two companies that compete with Google in the growing market for in-vehicle infotainment systems. At the heart of the controversy are Google Automotive Services (GAS), a bundle of services that include Google Maps, Google Play, and Google Assistant for drivers. While some car manufacturers like Volvo and Ford rely on GAS, German brands such as BMW and Mercedes are not on Google's customer list. The Federal Cartel Office has made it clear that it views Google's bundling policy and further requirements for the presentation of services as restrictive to competition and wishes to take action against it. Accordingly, the exchange of the Office's preliminary assessments is an essential step in obtaining the competitors' opinions on Google's practices. The search engine giant had resisted the disclosure, arguing that it involved protectable trade secrets. Despite some passages being redacted in advance, there were still unresolved issues, although not every case could be resolved during the oral hearing. The Federal Court of Justice stated that in deciding on disclosure, it is always necessary to weigh the necessity, suitability, and appropriateness, and that the public interest in the clarification of the facts can override the interests in secrecy. Google responded to the judgment with cautious optimism. The company sees the rigorous review process of the Federal Court of Justice as a guarantee that confidential information remains protected and that the interests of all parties are balanced. At the same time, a detailed evaluation of the judgment and its reasoning is required.