In the Google Shopping judgment, the General Court refers to Google’s super-dominance and with it its stronger obligation not to allow its behaviour to impair effective competition. The concept of super-dominance suggests that certain conduct could breach Article 102 TFEU only when adopted by super-dominant undertakings, but it remains uncertain how exactly it contributes to finding an abuse. The aim of this paper is to analyze the Google Shopping judgment in relation to the concept of super-dominance. We explore how the concept has evolved in the case-law and what role it has played when establishing an abuse of dominance and analyze whether reliance on super-dominance in the case law is consistent with the effects-based approach. Finally, we examine how Google Shopping fits with the evolution of super-dominance in the case law and the effects-based approach and what it means for the regulation of digital gatekeepers going forward
