EU launches investigation into Corning, creator of popular Gorilla Glass for smartphones

Equipping the windows of many smartphone manufacturers, the Corning company is at the heart of an investigation carried out by the European Union against a backdrop of abuse of a dominant position.

Worse Gorilla Glass

Would Corning have had eyes bigger than its stomach? The company behind the famous Gorilla Glass is targeted by an investigation of the European Commission, suspecting the company of having stifled its competition with abusive exclusivity agreements.

Guarded room

The European Commission’s investigation aims to find out whether Corning has entered into agreements with various smartphone manufacturers, but also companies specializing in raw glass, to the point that it has almost become the sole contact.

“We are investigating whether Corning, a major producer of this special glass, attempted to exclude competing glass producers, thereby depriving consumers of cheaper, more breakage-resistant glass. »

Margrethe Vestager, executive vice-president in charge of competition policy

Beyond this statement from Vestager, we learn that the EU suspects Corning of having allowed significant discounts by promising exclusivity agreements coupled with a clause “ forcing OEMs (the builders) to inform Corning of competitive offers and allowing OEMs to accept this offer only if Corning does not match the price. »

This set of practices would have allowed the company to stifle its competition by drastically limiting the choice of its customers while “stifling innovation”. As a result, prices in the sector are moving upwards at the sole discretion of Corning. “It is very frustrating and expensive to break a cell phone screen,” says Vestager. She continues by specifying that strong competition in the sector is essential for “guarantee low prices and high quality glass”.

The European Commission has indicated that it will now carry out an in-depth investigation to identify the main elements relating to competition. She took the opportunity to specify that an investigation is not equivalent to a judgment, arguing that the Corning company is fully entitled to submit information to respond to the Commission’s concerns.


Source: www.frandroid.com