Competition Law and Ecosystem Competition Benchmarking

1. Introduction

Ecosystem competition benchmarking means comparing the competitive conditions, conduct, performance, access rules, and market outcomes of interconnected business ecosystems to determine whether an ecosystem is genuinely contestable or whether its internal advantages are creating or reinforcing exclusionary market power.

It is particularly important in digital markets, where a single undertaking may operate several connected layers:

Operating System → App Store → Payments → Search → Advertising → Data → AI → Cloud

or:

Marketplace → Sellers → Logistics → Payments → Advertising → Consumer Data

The European Commission currently treats contestability of mobile ecosystems as an important DMA objective. Its 2026 materials specifically identify interoperability, data access and portability as mechanisms intended to allow third parties to compete with gatekeepers on more equal terms. (Digital Markets Act (DMA))

Core formula

ECOSYSTEM → BENCHMARK → IDENTIFY DIFFERENCE → TEST CAUSE → MEASURE EFFECT → LEGAL ASSESSMENT → REMEDY

2. Meaning of Ecosystem Competition Benchmarking

Traditional competition analysis often asks:

What is the relevant market, who has market power, and what conduct is taking place?

Ecosystem benchmarking adds another question:

How does the ecosystem's competitive environment compare with realistic alternative ecosystems or pre-conduct/counterfactual conditions?

For example, a regulator might compare:

Apple's ecosystem with Android;

Google's search ecosystem with rival search engines;

one marketplace's seller-access conditions with competing marketplaces;

a cloud ecosystem's switching conditions with competing cloud systems;

an incumbent ecosystem's API access with conditions available to its own services.

The comparison itself does not establish an infringement. It is evidence that must be connected to the relevant legal test.

3. Why Benchmarking Matters

A. Ecosystem power is multidimensional

Market share alone may not capture ecosystem strength.

Relevant indicators can include:

number of users;

business-user dependence;

switching costs;

multi-homing;

network effects;

data advantages;

interoperability;

default status;

technical access;

ranking;

commissions;

pricing;

advertising reach;

developer dependence.

B. The counterfactual problem

Suppose an ecosystem's competitors have a 30% access rate while the ecosystem's own service has 100% access.

The question is not automatically:

"Is this unlawful?"

The proper questions are:

Why is the difference present?

Is the difference technically necessary?

Does it disadvantage competitors?

Does the ecosystem possess substantial market power?

Does the conduct foreclose competition?

Is there an objective justification?

4. Main Benchmarking Dimensions

4.1 Market-share benchmarking

Compare:

market shares;

growth rates;

user numbers;

transaction volumes;

advertising share;

developer share.

But market share should not be used alone.

4.2 Price benchmarking

Compare:

platform commissions;

app-store fees;

payment charges;

advertising prices;

cloud prices;

licensing fees.

Example:

Own service fee = 10%

Rival service fee = 25%

The difference can be a useful investigative indicator, but the legal analysis requires consideration of cost, quality, contractual differences and competitive effects.

5. Access Benchmarking

A particularly important ecosystem benchmark is:

Does the ecosystem owner give rivals access on conditions comparable to those available to its own services?

Possible metrics:

The DMA's Article 6(7) interoperability requirement specifically requires gatekeepers to provide third parties access to certain OS hardware and software features available to their own services. (Digital Markets Act (DMA))

6. Interoperability Benchmarking

Interoperability can be measured by comparing:

Gatekeeper's own service access

versus

Third-party service access

For example:

Own AI service → full Android functionality

Rival AI service → restricted Android functionality

That difference may become a competition concern where it affects the ability of rivals to compete effectively.

In July 2026, the Commission adopted binding specification measures concerning Google's Android interoperability for competing AI services, including access to Android capabilities controlled by the operating system. (Digital Markets Act (DMA))

7. Data Benchmarking

Data can be benchmarked according to:

quantity;

quality;

frequency;

real-time availability;

historical depth;

granularity;

portability;

access price;

technical usability.

A major ecosystem advantage can arise where:

More users → more data → better service → more users → more data

This is a data-network feedback loop.

The EU's 2026 Google Search data-sharing measures are an example of regulatory intervention aimed at reducing such an informational advantage: Google is required to share anonymised search data with eligible competing search engines on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. (Digital Markets Act (DMA))

8. Switching-Cost Benchmarking

Benchmarking should examine how difficult it is for users and businesses to leave an ecosystem.

Relevant indicators include:

data-transfer difficulty;

loss of applications;

loss of contacts;

contractual penalties;

technical incompatibility;

retraining costs;

loss of reputation/data;

loss of customer relationships.

The DMA's mobile ecosystem work specifically identifies data portability as a mechanism for reducing switching barriers between mobile ecosystems. (Digital Markets Act (DMA))

9. Multi-Homing Benchmarking

Multi-homing means using multiple competing platforms.

Example:

A seller uses:

Amazon;

its own website;

another marketplace.

High multi-homing can constrain ecosystem power.

Low multi-homing can increase dependence.

Therefore:

High multi-homing → lower dependency

Low multi-homing → potentially higher ecosystem power

But again, the economic fact is not itself a legal infringement.

10. Innovation Benchmarking

Competition authorities can compare:

R&D expenditure;

product launches;

patents;

developer activity;

new entrants;

innovation speed;

quality improvements;

interoperability innovations.

This is particularly relevant where an ecosystem acquisition could eliminate a potential competitor.

The benchmark should consider both:

short-term price effects

and

long-term innovation effects.

11. Quality Benchmarking

Digital services may be provided at zero monetary price.

Therefore, price is often insufficient.

Quality benchmarking can examine:

privacy;

security;

speed;

functionality;

advertising intensity;

data collection;

reliability;

user choice.

A platform can potentially harm competition without increasing monetary prices.

12. Governance Benchmarking

An ecosystem's internal rules can also be compared.

Relevant benchmarks include:

suspension procedures;

appeal rights;

complaint handling;

ranking transparency;

access criteria;

fee changes;

algorithmic changes;

notice periods;

dispute resolution.

This is particularly important because business users may become dependent on a platform's internal governance.

13. Case Law

1. Google Android — C-738/22 P

The Google Android litigation is a central ecosystem case.

The Commission's original decision concerned contractual restrictions involving Android device manufacturers and mobile network operators, including:

Google Search;

Chrome;

Play Store;

Android compatibility.

The case therefore illustrates how conduct across several interconnected products can be examined together.

The Court of Justice's 2026 judgment concerned Google's appeal against the General Court's judgment and the assessment of the exclusionary effects of the practices. (Curia)

Benchmarking relevance

A competition authority can compare:

Google-controlled services

with

competing services seeking access to the Android ecosystem.

Principle

Ecosystem restrictions should be assessed according to their effect on the competitive process, not merely according to the existence of technical integration.

14. Microsoft v Commission — T-201/04

Microsoft concerned Microsoft's dominant client-PC operating system and interoperability with work-group server operating systems, as well as tying of Windows with Windows Media Player.

The General Court upheld major aspects of the Commission's decision concerning refusal to supply interoperability information and tying. It also addressed an independent monitoring trustee as part of the remedy structure. (InfoCuria)

Benchmarking relevance

The important benchmark was essentially:

Interoperability available to Microsoft's own ecosystem

versus

interoperability available to rival server operating systems.

Principle

Where interoperability is competitively important, technical access can become a central benchmark for determining whether rivals can remain viable.

15. Google Shopping — Google Search Ecosystem

The Google Shopping case concerned the treatment of Google's comparison-shopping service within Google Search.

Benchmarking approach

A regulator can compare:

treatment of Google's own comparison-shopping service;

treatment of competing comparison-shopping services;

visibility;

ranking;

traffic;

click-through opportunities.

Competition significance

The case demonstrates the importance of examining a gateway ecosystem.

Search may constitute one layer, while comparison shopping represents another.

Thus:

Search gateway → ranking → traffic → downstream competition

can be analysed as an ecosystem chain.

16. Intel — C-413/14 P

Intel concerned rebates offered by a dominant undertaking.

The Court of Justice held that where the dominant undertaking submits evidence that its conduct was not capable of restricting competition, the Commission must assess all relevant circumstances, including the possible application of the as-efficient-competitor test where appropriate. (Curia)

Benchmarking relevance

The lesson for ecosystem benchmarking is important:

Difference in commercial conditions ≠ automatic infringement.

Authorities must investigate whether the conduct is actually capable of producing exclusionary effects.

Benchmark

Possible comparison:

Actual competitor conditions

versus

conditions required for an equally efficient rival to compete.

17. British Airways v Commission — C-95/04 P

British Airways concerned a dominant airline's incentive and commission arrangements with travel agents.

Benchmarking relevance

The case demonstrates the usefulness of comparing:

conditions offered to different trading partners;

incentive structures;

effective discounts;

competitive opportunities.

The broader lesson is that commercial differentiation by a dominant firm may require examination of its competitive effects.

This can be adapted to digital ecosystems where different sellers, developers or service providers receive different platform conditions.

18. Post Danmark II — C-23/14

Post Danmark II concerned a dominant postal operator's rebate scheme.

Benchmarking relevance

The case is useful for analysing:

rebate structures;

effective prices;

customer dependence;

foreclosure;

competitive alternatives.

An ecosystem benchmark can similarly examine whether platform discounts or incentives make it economically difficult for users or business partners to shift to rival ecosystems.

19. Apple DMA — App Store Anti-Steering

The European Commission's 2025 Apple DMA decision provides a modern ecosystem benchmark.

The Commission found Apple in breach of the DMA's anti-steering obligation and imposed a €500 million fine. (Digital Markets Act (DMA))

Benchmark

The relevant comparison includes:

App Store distribution

versus

alternative channels available to developers and consumers.

The issue demonstrates how benchmarking can move beyond traditional price comparisons to:

consumer choice;

distribution channels;

payment alternatives;

communication with users.

20. Meta DMA — Choice Architecture

In 2025 the Commission found Meta in breach of a DMA obligation concerning the choice offered to users regarding a less-personalised service. (Digital Markets Act (DMA))

Benchmarking relevance

The relevant benchmark can involve:

choice architecture under the ecosystem's preferred model

versus

a genuine alternative available to users.

This demonstrates that competition benchmarking increasingly includes the design of user choice, not merely monetary price.

21. Case-Law Summary Table

22. Benchmarking Methods

A. Internal benchmark

Compare:

ecosystem's own service

with

third-party service inside the same ecosystem.

Example:

Google's own AI service vs competing AI service on Android.

B. External benchmark

Compare:

Ecosystem A

with

Ecosystem B.

Example:

Android vs iOS.

C. Historical benchmark

Compare:

market before conduct

with

market after conduct.

D. Counterfactual benchmark

Compare:

actual market

with

market that would probably exist without the challenged conduct.

This is often particularly important in effects-based competition analysis.

E. Efficient-competitor benchmark

Ask:

Could an equally efficient rival compete under the same conditions?

This is particularly relevant to:

rebates;

pricing;

access conditions;

platform fees;

technical restrictions.

23. Benchmarking Indicators

A comprehensive ecosystem benchmark can use:

Market indicators

market share;

concentration;

entry;

exit;

growth.

User indicators

switching;

multi-homing;

retention;

churn.

Business indicators

commissions;

fees;

access;

seller dependence.

Technical indicators

API access;

interoperability;

latency;

functionality;

data access.

Innovation indicators

R&D;

patents;

new products;

developer participation.

Competitive indicators

foreclosure;

diversion;

entry barriers;

pricing;

quality.

24. Important Limitation: Benchmarking Is Not a Legal Test by Itself

This is one of the most important examination points.

A benchmark showing that:

Ecosystem A gives its own service better access than rivals

does not automatically prove an infringement.

The authority still needs to establish the elements required by the relevant legal provision.

For Article 102 TFEU, the analysis may involve:

DOMINANCE → CONDUCT → CAPABILITY/EFFECT → FORECLOSURE → COMPETITIVE HARM

For a DMA obligation, the legal analysis may instead focus on whether the designated gatekeeper complied with the specific ex ante obligation.

25. Benchmarking and the DMA

The DMA makes ecosystem benchmarking particularly important because the Commission can examine whether gatekeepers provide competitors with meaningful opportunities to compete.

Current examples include:

Android interoperability;

search-data sharing;

data portability;

anti-steering;

interoperability with connected devices.

In 2026 the Commission stated that its DMA enforcement includes continuous regulatory dialogue, compliance reports and third-party input. Gatekeepers also submitted independently audited consumer-profiling reports. (Digital Markets Act (DMA))

Thus the modern model is:

BENCHMARK → REGULATORY DIALOGUE → COMPLIANCE MEASURE → MONITORING → FURTHER ADJUSTMENT

26. Ecosystem Benchmarking and Remedies

Benchmarking is also useful after an infringement is established.

Suppose a remedy requires:

"Provide rivals with effective interoperability."

The regulator then needs measurable benchmarks.

For example:

response time;

technical availability;

access percentage;

API functionality;

data completeness;

cost;

discrimination rate.

This converts a general legal obligation into measurable compliance.

27. Competition Benchmarking vs Performance Benchmarking

These should not be confused.

Performance benchmarking

Asks:

Which ecosystem performs better?

Competition benchmarking

Asks:

Are competitive conditions sufficiently open and contestable?

An ecosystem can have excellent consumer performance and still raise competition concerns.

Conversely, a poorly performing ecosystem may not necessarily violate competition law.

28. Ecosystem Benchmarking Framework

For examination purposes, use:

B-E-N-C-H

B – Business structure
Identify the interconnected ecosystem.

E – Economic power
Measure market power, network effects and dependence.

N – Neutrality/access
Compare treatment of own services and rivals.

C – Competitive effects
Measure foreclosure, entry barriers, switching and innovation.

H – Harm/remedy
Determine whether legal intervention is justified and what measurable remedy should apply.

29. Ultra-Short Revision List

Ecosystem benchmarking compares competitive conditions across interconnected platforms and services.

Market share alone is insufficient.

Important benchmarks include price, access, data, interoperability, ranking, switching, multi-homing and innovation.

Internal benchmarking compares own service vs rivals.

External benchmarking compares competing ecosystems.

Historical benchmarking compares before/after conditions.

Counterfactual benchmarking compares actual conditions with likely conditions absent the challenged conduct.

Benchmarking is evidence, not automatically a legal infringement.

Google Android demonstrates ecosystem restrictions involving multiple connected services.

Microsoft demonstrates interoperability benchmarking.

Google Shopping demonstrates gateway/ranking benchmarking.

Intel demonstrates the importance of effects analysis.

Apple DMA demonstrates distribution and anti-steering benchmarking.

DMA interoperability/data-access rules make benchmarking an ongoing regulatory tool. (Digital Markets Act (DMA))

Memory Formula

ECOSYSTEM → POWER → BENCHMARK → DIFFERENCE → CAUSE → EFFECT → FORECLOSURE → LEGAL TEST → REMEDY

Final Conclusion

Ecosystem competition benchmarking is a structured method for evaluating whether interconnected business ecosystems provide genuinely contestable conditions for rivals, developers, sellers and consumers. It combines economic indicators such as market share, switching, pricing and innovation with technical indicators such as interoperability, API access and data portability. Modern competition enforcement increasingly uses these benchmarks to understand ecosystem power and to design measurable remedies. However, a benchmark is an analytical tool rather than an automatic finding of unlawful conduct: the relevant competition-law or ex-ante regulatory test must still be satisfied.