The whole google shopping case is ridiculous. If you are “big enough” and you change (aka make improvements to) your products you get fined. Foundem could have built a direct relationship with customers but that’s not the direction they went.
It forbids using your existing monopoly in one market as a weapon against competitors in the new markets you choose to enter.
The conduct that was illegal here was burying their comparison shopping competitor's websites in Google search results, not "making improvements" to something.
If Google launched Shopping on the same day they launched search, they could have continued the product and it wouldn't have been an antitrust violation. However, because they changed the product and introduced Shopping when they were already large, they're being treated differently.
This approach essentially forces large companies to "calcify", because any improvement to their popular product might be seen as an antitrust violation. It also discourages an MVP approach because if you get too popular too quickly, you're limited in how your MVP can grow.
Google did abused their position. That was determined to be true in fact finding.
Well, no... You get fined if you make improvements AND use your already big position to bury competition that may compete with your improvement.
Google could've just marketed their option along the competitors but no, they had to get rid of the competitors results in search too, and that's the issue