ERDEM-NEWSLETTER-2018-metin

114 NEWSLETTER 2018 as a search engine. Lastly, the Commission evaluated the effects of Google’s practices in the wider mobile space, since these illegal practices have prevented other mobile browsers from competing, ef- fectively. Similarly, Google’s limitation with regard to Android forks, which has obstructed other platforms’ development, has negated other app developers’ ability to thrive. Board Decision Although the reasoned Board decision has not yet been published, the Board’s press release is indicative in terms of the grounds for the decision. In line with the Commission decision, the Board has also deter- mined that Google Economic Entity is dominant in the market for “licensable smart mobile operating systems.” The Board did not de- fine “general internet search services” and “app stores for the Android mobile operating system” markets in the Turkish market. Google Economic Entity’s illegal actions that have been fined in the Board decision are mainly with regard to the illegal tying of Google’s search apps. According to the decision, the implementations Google employed that have been found to be illegal, are as follows: • According to the Mobile Implementation Distribution Cont- racts signed with the manufacturers, Google search shall be the “default search engine,” and the Google search engine shall be the “homepage.” • Google Webview shall be the default, and the only compo- nent for the relevant function. • According to the Income Share Contracts, the Google search shall be exclusively downloaded into the devices. The Board stated that the other Google implementations set forth under Mobile Implementation Distribution Contracts are not in breach with Article 6 of the Competition Act. On the other hand, in order to provide publicity and avoid the future possible competition concerns for the contractor device manufacturers, the Authority presidency is to send an opinion letter to the Google Economic Entity regarding the