歐盟執行委員會在2017年對於Google搜尋引擎濫用優勢地位至比價服務之爭議作出裁決，並祭予重罰，Google隨後向歐洲法院提起上訴。截至目前雖歐盟法院之判決尚未出爐，然該爭議已在各國競爭法領域中引發討論。首先，競爭法下企業濫用優勢地位之行為，亦即我國公平交易法中所規定禁止具有獨占地位之事業所為之行為，隨著數位時代新興資訊科技產業的發展下，在實際面臨個案法律分析時衍生許多問題，諸如現今資訊產業多元化發展的趨勢模糊了市場界線，導致界定市場更加困難。再者，濫用優勢地位的判斷上，在時常出現顛覆式創新的資訊科技產業中，導致縱使一具有極高市占率之企業，仍可能短時間迅速被新產品所取代。因此，本文藉由檢討歐盟執委會對於Google搜尋引擎在歐盟地區爭議案件的裁定內容，嘗試歸納出對於現今資訊科技產業濫用優勢地位之判斷，主管機關應嚴格遵守以市場上的競爭秩序是否遭受破壞為準則，探討對於市場上買受者而言，具有優勢地位企業之作為是否對其致生損害。而不應以該爭議企業對於其他競爭者有造成負面影響之結果，即判定該企業之作為違反競爭法規範，否則將可能產生倒果為因的情形。最後，由於Google搜尋引擎於2017年開始在台灣於施行與歐洲比價服務爭議事件相同之作為，是故本文藉由該爭議案件之討論來帶出對於台灣公平交易法之啟示。 ;In 2017, the EU Commission fined Google €2.42 billion for abusing dominance as search engine by giving illegal advantage to own comparison shopping service. Google contested that it positioned and displayed its comparison shopping service more favorably in general search results pages compared to competing comparison shopping services and subsequently appealed to the Court of Justice. Up to now, although the Judgement has not been released, the dispute on this issue has triggered discussions related to Competition Law around the world. First of all, the discussion of abusing dominance by enterprises, that is, defined in Taiwan’s Fair Trade Law with the term “the prohibiting behavior of a monopoly business”, has faced several promlems in the actual legal analysis as the development of the information technology industry in the digital era. Such as the diversified development in information technology industry may blurs the market boundaries and makes it more difficult to define the market. Moreover, when it mentions to the abuse of dominant position, there is an occasion that subversive innovations happen often. It turns out surprisingly that even an existing product with high market share can be replaced by new product in a short period. Therefore, this thesis attempts to summarize the judgment on the abuse of dominant position in the information technology industry by reviewing EU Commission′s decision on whether Google’s search engine has abused its market power to Google Shopping. And further leads to the conclusion that the competition authority should strictly comply the rule as examining whether a market’s competition order is under destruction. It should not be alleged that the disputed enterprise violates the Competition Law merely due to it has negative impacts on other competitors. Otherwise, it could lead to wrong decision. Lastly, given that Google search engine has carried out the same disputed strategies in Taiwan since last year, this thesis hence brings out the enlightenment of Taiwan′s Fair Trade Law through the discussion of this disputed case.