In its some months ago judgment in Enel v. Google, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that Google is, in principle, obliged to provide interoperability templates for third-party apps within a reasonable timeframe. Exemptions apply only where the platform operator can demonstrate a threat to the security or integrity of the platform.
In other words, the platform must actively enable interoperability. It can no longer rely on the argument that no access has been granted; it must technically facilitate access where applicable. Failure to comply may constitute abuse of dominance.
In practice, this makes interoperability via templates a key compliance issue. Competition must be enabled on the platform — and templates function as the technical enabler for third-party integration.
This article analyses the competition law implications of mandatory interoperability and the legal risks of exclusionary template strategies.
Challenges of Mandatory Templates
The CJEU does not define the technical specifics of such templates. It leaves open whether proprietary templates are sufficient or whether uniform standards must be developed. This will depend on the individual case and the potential for abusive conduct under Article 102 TFEU.
The judgment implies that templates must not compromise the security or functionality of the third-party app itself. Since app providers operate in diverse technical environments, the platform operator must align its templates accordingly — potentially including backward compatibility, ongoing maintenance, and updates.
Legally, the obligation arises from the general abuse of dominance prohibition, supplemented by equal treatment principles. The dominant platform must not treat third-party apps less favourably than its own. Once a platform is opened to third-party access, regulatory obligations attach, even if the platform was initially built for internal use.
Exceptions to this obligation are narrow. Neither capacity constraints nor cost concerns suffice. Only proven risks to security or integrity may justify refusal.
“Too Expensive” Is Not a Valid Defence
Dominant platforms must develop templates within a reasonable timeframe. They cannot reject access requests based on cost concerns alone. These obligations reflect the enhanced responsibility dominant firms owe to the competitive process.
The CJEU leaves open whether the costs of template development may be passed on to the demanding untertaking. However, it provides clear guidance on the relevant pricing framework. See in particular headnote 3 of the Enel/Google decision:
“Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that where the conduct of a dominant undertaking consists in refusing to ensure the interoperability of a third-party application with a digital platform it controls, that refusal may amount to an abuse unless the dominant undertaking can show that, at the time of the request, there was no existing template and that the development of such a template would jeopardise the platform’s integrity or security, or would be technically impossible. Failing such justification, the dominant firm must develop such a template within a reasonable time and, where appropriate, for appropriate remuneration, taking into account the requesting undertaking’s needs, the actual development costs, and the dominant undertaking’s right to a reasonable return.”
- CJEU, Judgment of 25 February 2025 – C‑233/23
From this, we derive four pricing principles:
- Appropriateness: Any remuneration must be reasonable and is subject to abuse-of-dominance scrutiny.
- Demand orientation: The template must meet the technical needs of the third-party provider, and cannot be dismissed arbitrarily.
- Cost-based justification: Actual development costs may be considered, but must be documented.
- Value-sharing: The dominant platform may retain a reasonable benefit from the template, but must offset these advantages against the charges imposed.
If the access demanding untertaking is willing to bear costs, the cost argument becomes even less tenable. Such an offer may be used as a strategic lever to compel timely access.
Must the Platform Offer Just Access – or Viable Access?
This leads to a key qualitative question: Is the platform only required to grant technical access, or must it ensure commercially viable access?
The answer depends on comparative treatment: if the platform’s own services or preferred partners receive high-performance access, third-party access must not be unduly degraded. Anything less would likely violate the equal treatment principle and may qualify as exclusionary conduct.
How Can Companies Mitigate the Risk of Unlawful Access Denial?
For platform operators:
- Proactively define access policies and technical specifications.
- Publish API documentation and template integration guidance.
- Clearly specify justifiable exceptions (e.g. documented security concerns).
- Track and document development costs early, to justify any future pricing.
- Prepare for future litigation by establishing transparent, non-discriminatory access procedures.
For third-party providers:
- Ensure technical compliance with security and integration standards.
- Proactively address and rebut potential security concerns.
- Where no security risks exist, demand template access and assert the right under Enel/Google.
- Consider co-financing the development, if necessary, to expedite access.
The CJEU’s decision gives third-party providers a powerful legal tool. Platform operators must no longer decide unilaterally who may or may not access the ecosystem.
We are a law firm specialised at the intersection of law, technology, and competition. We contribute to academic and regulatory debates and draw from first-hand entrepreneurial experience.
If your business is affected by complex platform access issues, get in touch for pragmatic, forward-thinking solutions.
