'Gorilla Glass' is often a touchstone of increased confidence in bringing your latest screen everywhere without fear of mystery scratches or cracks on that first-ever stomach-churning drop. But does the name represent an unfair advantage in its space? The EC seems to think so.
The Commission is now investigating claims that Gorilla Glass is so seemingly popular not merely due to its ability to protect screens but to its maker's lack of compunction in preventing portable electronics OEMs from looking elsewhere for the alkali-aluminosilicate (or Alkali-AS) compound of which it is made.
Corning's "anti-competitive" tactics allegedly include the extraction of "exclusive sourcing" agreements from companies that make devices such as smartphones and tablets (not to mention an increasing number of laptops) that ensures they only use Gorilla Glass, with "rebates" as incentives to do so.
Even if those OEMs want to work with other Alkali-AS producers, they are prevented from switching glass suppliers if Corning can undercut them.
Should it be found guilty of excluding competitors from the market in this manner, the company would be in breach of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and possibly be liable for financial penalties.
The New York-based materials company has responded with an assertion that it "has and will continue to be committed to compliance with all applicable rules and regulations where it does business", and works "with local regulatory authorities to ensure open discussion and cooperation".
Then again, the EC's position might help explain why other prominently durability-enhancing forms of screen cover glass mostly include in-house examples such as Apple's Ceramic Shield or Huawei's Kunlun Glass.
Nevertheless, Corning asserts that its Gorilla Glass performs better in drop and scratch tests compared to rival Alkali-AS products, particularly its latest high-end Victus and Armor types for devices such as the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra.