In my opinion, to be accurately characterised as "monopoly abuse", there must be third party collusion. The idea that merely favouring your own products on your own service is somehow an "abuse" is ridiculous. Google favouring Google Maps on Google Search is no less than I'd expect. If Streetmap wants preferential treatment then it needs to run its own competing service to Google Search, but demanding that a competitor favour your product over their own, or even give it equal consideration, is just silly.
Actual abuse would be, for example, contractually forcing third party OEMs to exclude competing operating systems, as Microsoft did. Whereas OS vendors have no reasonable expectation of Microsoft promoting competing operating systems, they do have the reasonable expectation that companies entirely unconnected to Microsoft don't exclude them at the behest of another competitor.
That's the difference between mere dominance and actual abuse.