The EU essential facilities doctrine after Android Auto: A wild card without limiting principles?

The essential facility doctrine (EFD) has traditionally been a topic of intense debate and marks the most relevant transatlantic divergence in the enforcement of competition law. As it constitutes a significant exception to the general rule that allows businesses to freely decide whether to enter agreements regarding their facilities, the discussion surrounding the EFD is about defining its limits. Indeed, its rationale seeks to maintain a balance between fundamental rights and competition, as well as between short-term and long-term competitive benefits. To this end, EU courts have conditioned its application on exceptional circumstances, with the indispensability of the infrastructure serving as the pivotal criterion. This criterion acts as the threshold for distinguishing between a facility that is essential for competition and one that is merely convenient for competitors. However, over time, the case law has progressively limited the instances in which the indispensability is required. The recent decision of the Court of Justice in Android Auto has confirmed this trend, stating that indispensability is not required when a platform has been designed to be open to thirdparty undertakings. Given that Android Auto appears to be the last dance of the EFD as originally conceived, this article investigates whether the current application of the EFD in the EU still aligns with its rationale.