De même, estime le Tribunal, le système appliqué par Michelin de la prime de service censée rémunérer les services après vente rendus par les revendeurs avait un effet abusif: il était inéquitable( car reposant sur des critères d'appréciation subjectifs), fidélisant et avait un effet de vente liée dans la mesure où les revendeurs étaient incités à faire rechaper en priorité les pneus par Michelin.
Similarly, in the Court of First Instance's view, the service bonuses operated by Michelin, which supposedly rewarded after-sales services provided by dealers, had an abusive effect: they were unfair since they were based on subjective criteria, were loyalty-inducing and were in the nature of a tied sale in that they encouraged dealers to give priority to Michelin when having tyres retreaded.