On December 17, 2018, the European Commission (EC) imposed on the clothing company Guess a hefty penalty of EUR 40 million for allegedly severe restrictions relating to the online sales activities of its authorized distributors.  The full text of the Decision was published by the EC on January 25, 2019.

While the substance of the Decision does not really bring anything new on the way enforcers have thus far addressed online restraints imposed by brand suppliers, Guess is not devoid of interest – au contraire. Guess not only takes stock of the EC’s findings in the final report of the e-commerce sector inquiry, which the EC released in May 2017, but uniquely aggregates a series of price and non-price online restraints into a single infringement case.

Guess is also a useful reminder of the consequence that suppliers face when they impose such restraints on their resellers. Enforcement to date – and Guess makes no exception in that respect – shows that such restraints are invariably considered to fall within the scope of restrictions of competition ‘by object’, meaning that they are treated as being so injurious to (intra-brand) competition that (a) no further inquiry into their effects is necessary to support a finding of infringement and (b) there is virtually no scope for successfully arguing redeeming efficiencies.

Beside these useful reminders, Guess provides yet another fresh instance – following Asus, Philips, Pioneer, and Denon & Marantz in July 2018 – where the EC readily engages in settlement proceedings and rewards cooperation in a vertical setting.

Background

Guess designs, distributes and licenses clothing and accessories for men, women and children under numerous trademarks. Guess markets its products in Europe via a selective distribution network.

In June 2017, the EC opened an investigation into a series of restrictions that Guess imposed on its authorized retailers. In particular, the latter were allegedly prevented from:

  • Using the Guess brand names and trademarks for the purposes of online search advertising (e. through AdWords auctioning);
  • Selling online without a prior specific authorization by Guess. The investigation revealed that Guess reserved full discretion for withholding such authorization, that is, such a refusal was not subject to any objective justification or criteria;
  • Selling to consumers located outside the authorized retailers’ allocated territories;
  • Cross-selling among authorized wholesalers and retailers; and
  • Independently deciding on the retail price at which they resell the Guess branded products.

 A Useful Recap of Antitrust Enforcement Post E-Commerce Sector Inquiry

 In May 2017, the EC published its final report on its e-commerce sector inquiry. Among other findings, the inquiry revealed an increased use by suppliers of contractual restrictions aimed at (re)asserting control over their distribution network and protecting their brands in the online space. Almost two years on, Guess comes as one of multiple follow-on enforcement cases.  But interestingly, the case draws together a series of restrictive practices, which the EC and National Competition Authorities (NCAs) have targeted and aggressively prosecuted as restrictions ‘by object’ in recent years. We review each in turn below.

  • Online sales ban

Guess’ agreements made online sales by authorized retailers conditional on the retailer first obtaining explicit authorization from Guess to conduct online sales. However, this authorization was not circumscribed by any objective criteria, giving Guess full discretion in deciding whether to allow authorized retailers to sell its branded products online.

Considering that such prior authorization had as its main object the restriction of sales on authorized retailers’ websites in order to (i) protect Guess’ own online sales activities from intra-brand competition by its authorized retailers and (ii) limit the authorized retailers’ ability to sell the branded products outside their catchment area, the EC concluded that this requirement amounted to a de facto online sales ban à la Pierre Fabre. Accordingly, following this line of cases, the EC found that the practice qualified as an anticompetitive restriction ‘by object’ and, in the absence of any convincing redeeming virtue, was illegal.

  • Unjustified absolute territorial partitioning

Guess’ selective distribution agreements restricted active and passive sales by members of the selective network to end users located outside their allocated territory. In particular, the agreements confined authorized retailers’ advertising and selling activities to their respective allocated territory, under penalty of immediate termination. As further highlighted in the course of the e-commerce sector inquiry, the EC considers practices having effects equivalent to geo-blocking as a limitation on cross-border trade and selling and, hence, as constitutive of a restriction of competition ‘by object’.

Guess came on the heels of the Regulation 2018/302 on unjustified geo-blocking, which applies as of December 3, 2018. This Regulation prohibits geo-blocking and other geographically-based restrictions which deny consumers the benefit of purchasing products and services on a cross-border basis, thereby limiting choice and undermining the advantage of online commerce. Guess’ practices consisting of restricting passive sales by its authorized resellers to consumers would therefore now be prohibited by the Geo-blocking Regulation.

  • Cross-selling within the selective distribution network

A number of provisions in Guess’ distribution agreements restricted the ability of wholesalers and authorized retailers to promote and sell Guess products to other wholesalers or authorized retailers within Guess’ selective distribution network. More specifically, Guess’ wholesale agreements provided for (i) minimum purchase obligations, (ii) an obligation to report Guess any of the wholesalers’ product purchases from sources other than Guess, allowing Guess to monitor the restrictions imposed on wholesalers and dissuading wholesalers from purchasing from other authorized members of the selective distribution network, (iii) an obligation to ensure at the wholesalers’ own expense that the products sold to their retailer customers remain within the allocated territory, (iv) a prohibition to advertise products outside the wholesalers’ allocated territory or to approach other wholesalers within Guess’ selective distribution system, these latest being necessarily outside the wholesaler’s allocated territory as Guess only nominated one wholesaler per territory per product line. Under the same logic, the retail agreements only allowed sales to end users and restricted purchases across the selective distribution network,  by providing – depending on the agreements – that (i) retailers store could only sell to final customers, (ii) the store operator could only purchase products from Guess, Guess’ local wholesaler or from an authorized Guess manufacturing licensee for its own account and for resale only in the store in the territory, and (iii) transactions were prohibited among authorized retailers.

The EC unsurprisingly reiterated the settled principle that a restriction of sales among authorized retailers within a selective distribution network constitutes a restriction of competition by object, reminding brand suppliers that the members of a selective distribution network must be free to cross-sell the products covered by the distribution agreement among each other.

  • Resale price maintenance

Guess’ distribution agreements restricted the ability of Guess’ retailers to determine their resale prices. According to Guess, the objective was to make “the product image uniform on the market”. The EC found this justification unconvincing and reaffirmed its stance that the imposition of minimum or fixed retail prices upon retailers as one of the most serious restraints of intra-brand competition.

  • Online advertising restriction

In order to control the expansion of online sales by its independent distributors, Guess also restricted the use of the Guess brand names and trademarks, in particular Google AdWords. More specifically, Guess systematically prohibited its authorized retailers from using or bidding on Guess brand names and trademarks as keywords in Google AdWords in Europe.

This case is the first time that the EC has had the opportunity to review search advertising restrictions imposed by suppliers. Building on existing case-law at national level, in particular from Germany, the EC reached the conclusion that Guess prevented retailers from being sufficiently visible and accessible in the online space and, hence, seriously hindered their ability to sell online. Accordingly, the prohibition on the use of Guess brands and trademarks for the purpose of search advertising amounted to an unjustifiable restriction on Internet sales and, yet again, fell into the ‘by object’ box.

The EC Rewards Cooperation in Vertical Restraints Cases

In calculating the initial amount of the fine, the EC noted the vertical dimension of the illegal practices and acknowledged the less damaging effect of such practices on competition. This resulted in the EC using a multiplier of 7% on the value of sales affected by the infringement, which is much lower than in horizontal cartel and abuse of dominance cases. Still, the initial amount was very significant, i.e. close to EUR 80 million.

The EC granted Guess a 50% reduction on the initial amount in order to reward the company’s cooperation beyond its legal obligation to do so. In particular, according to the Decision, Guess acknowledged the infringements before the issuing of a statement of objections, revealed a restriction of competition which was not known to the EC and provided the EC with additional evidence representing significant added value in comparison with the evidence already in the EC’s possession.

Guess is the second time that the EC has rewarded cooperation in antitrust investigations relating to restrictions imposed by suppliers on their authorized retailers. This emerging practice effectively translates and imports the well-established framework for rewarding cooperation by companies under cartel investigations, i.e. the leniency programme and cartel settlement mechanism. In this vein, the EC published a fact sheet alongside the Decision, which explains the framework for a successful cooperation à la Guess, which is intended to incentivize suppliers under investigation for having imposed anticompetitive vertical restraints to promptly cooperate with the EC.

Restrictions of Competition by Object

As indicated above, for each strand of conduct, the EC did not bother to inquire into the likely or actual effects of the impinged practices. On the contrary, the EC’s reasoning is that all of the flagged restraints fall within the ‘by object’ category. Because the bar to rebut such a classification is set at an unsurmountable level, i.e. in terms of proving overriding efficiencies that may flow from such practices, this leaves the supplier with virtually no scope to successfully defend its business conduct. This is particularly the case – as here – where the EC could rely on documentary evidence revealing the company’s intentions and strategy behind some of those practices. Accordingly, suppliers faced with such accusations are under heavy pressure to admit their sins and settle the case against a discount on the fine rather than dig themselves into a hopeless and time-consuming fight.

In sum, Guess is a stern reminder that companies should keep the EU competition pitfalls in mind when devising their distribution strategy and designing their distribution agreements.

A Common Agenda pursued by Enforcers

Guess is a further illustration that European competition authorities are driven by a common enforcement agenda in relation to e-commerce. Specifically, enforcers are keen to ensure that brand suppliers do not reserve the online channel to themselves to the detriment of their authorized resellers. In this regard enforcers have been unsympathetic to claims that such practices were meant to avoid cannibalization and/or free-riding. Indeed, when sanctioning Guess’ commercial strategy behind the above practices,  the EC espoused the Bundeskartellamt’s (BKA) enforcement objective, set out in its October 2018 policy paper on the Digital Economy, “to keep markets open and prevent e-commerce from being concentrated in the hands of only a few players, i.e. the manufacturers themselves, some large dealers and even fewer leading platforms, which would dramatically reduce customers’ choice options”.

In the months and years to come, we anticipate that this uncompromising enforcement approach will continue and expand, especially so as to also capture large online marketplaces (see, e.g., the parallel investigations by the EC and the BKA against Amazon). In parallel, however, the review of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation, which started on February 4 with the launch of the EC market consultation, should provide an opportunity for the industry and stakeholders to call such an aggressive enforcement approach into question, inter alia in view of divergent positions taken by some EU Member States and third countries on some of the above restraints.

On July 13, 2018, the Paris Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel de Paris) finally upheld Caudalie’s marketplace ban, putting an end to a five-year legal saga. This judgment is highly interesting in that it goes beyond the landmark 2017 Coty judgment by ruling that platform bans may, under certain circumstances, apply to non-luxury products – a question that was left open in Coty.

Quick Recap

The dispute involves Caudalie, a French cosmetic manufacturer, and eNova, on online platform. Caudalie distributes its products via a selective distribution network. As per Caudalie’s selective distribution contracts, distributors may resell Caudalie’s products online, on the condition that they do so via their own websites. Accordingly, distributors are de facto prohibited from distributing on online platforms.

Despite the prohibition, eNova commercialized Caudalie’s products on its platform. Caudalie opposed this commercialization and applied for interim measures against eNova, requesting the cessation of sales of the products on eNova’s online platform as well as the award of damages.

The Paris Court of Appeal initially rejected Caudalie’s application for interim measures, on the basis that platform bans may amount to a hardcore restriction under European competition law. However, this ruling failed to persuade the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation), which ruled in favor of Caudalie and referred the case back to the Paris Court on September 13, 2017 – that is, a couple of months before the Coty judgment was adopted.

Caudalie’s Platform Ban Is Justified

Since then, in December of last year, the European Court of Justice (CoJ) delivered its judgment in the Coty case (see our article here). Unsurprisingly, the Paris Court of Appeal took stock of the Coty judgment and vetted Caudalie’s platform ban. In support of this conclusion, the Paris Court of Appeal noted that:

In the light of the CoJ’s view that luxury is also the result of the products’ “allure and prestigious image which bestow on them an aura of luxury”, Caudalies’ cosmetic products qualify as luxury products. Crucially, the Paris Court of Appeal also noted that, in accordance with DG Comp’s comments on the Coty case, platforms bans may, in certain cases, apply beyond luxury goods.

Given (i) the absence of contractual relationships between Caudalie and eNova which would compel eNova to comply with Caudalie’s quality requirements and (ii) the fact that eNova’s platform was selling Caudalie’s products next to completely non-related items (e.g. fire alarms and video surveillance cameras), the Paris Court of Appeal considered the marketplace ban appropriate and proportionate to preserve the luxury image of Caudalie’s products.

On the basis of the above, the French Court upheld Caudalie’s platform ban.

Extending Coty to Non-Luxury Goods

The Coty judgment ruled that a supplier of luxury goods can prohibit its authorized distributors from selling those goods on marketplaces. This ruling came as a surprise to a number of commentators and put a hard stop to a line of national cases, including from the French and the German competition authorities, which had taken strong positions against platform bans. Coty also left a number of open questions, in particular concerning the scope of the judgment: was it really limited to luxury goods, or could it be extended to other types of products?

One year on, national courts are progressively aligning behind the CoJ – as illustrated by the Caudalie case (which is arguably a fairly uncontroversial case, due to its obvious resemblance with Coty). In addition, a consensus appears to emerge as to non-luxury goods: platform bans may also be justified for these products. Beyond the Paris Court of Appeal’s ruling in the present Caudalie judgment, this is apparent from various recent developments:

  • DG Comp issued in April 2018 a competition policy brief in which it expressed the view that a prohibition on sales of non-luxury goods through online marketplaces would also not infringe Article 101(1), provided that the Metro criteria are satisfied;
  • In the same line, the French Competition Authority (FCA) recently validated a platform ban imposed in the chainsaw sector, due to safety concerns (see our briefing here);
  • Even in Germany – where more resistance was expected due to initial comments of the head of the Federal Cartel Office (FCO), – a recent judgment allowed for a small opening of platform bans beyond luxury goods (Aloe2Go case, validating a platform ban in the sector of food supplements, cosmetics and fitness drinks, on the basis of safeguarding proper customer advisory services).

Going forward, it will be interesting to see whether these precedents, which broaden the scope of permissible online restraints, hold up before the CoJ.

Today is the day: on Monday, December 3, the Geoblocking Regulation (the Regulation) starts applying to online businesses operating across several EU Member States. For those who feel like they need a refresher, below we provide an overview of what is in the Regulation – as well as what is not.

The Regulation in a Nutshell

The Regulation lays down rules relating to access to online interfaces, access to goods and services and non-discrimination for reasons related to payment.

  • Access to online interfaces: the Regulation bans the blocking of access to website or the re-routing without the prior consent of the customer. For instance, a customer located in Ireland should be free to access the French website of a trader and should not be automatically redirected to the Irish version of the trader’s website.
  • Access to goods and services: the Regulation envisages two main scenarios.
    • Sale of products: the Regulation does not compel traders to deliver across all EU Member States. However, where a trader does not deliver its products in the customer’s Member State, customers are nevertheless entitled to delivery in the Member State of the trader, under the same conditions as local customers. Under this rule, a German consumer who wishes to buy a bike and finds the best deal on a Polish website will be entitled to delivery of the bike in Poland.
    • Sale of services, either electronically supplied (e.g. cloud services) or provided in a specific physical location (e.g. concert tickets): customers established in a different Member State than the trader must be able to purchase the service under the same conditions as local customers. Importantly, these rules do not apply to the provisions of non-audiovisual copyright protected content services (e.g. e-books or video games), which are otherwise covered by the Regulation.
  • Non-discrimination for reasons related to payment: traders must accept the same means of payments for all customers, regardless of their nationality, place of residence, location of the payment account, place of establishment of the payment service provider or the place of issue of the payment instrument within the EU, provided that a number of conditions are met (e.g. the payer fulfils authentication requirements).

Enforcement of the Regulation is ensured at Member State level, by appointed authorities. To the best of our knowledge, not all EU Member States have yet appointed such authorities – which might cause delays in enforcement.

Audiovisual Services Not Impacted – For Now

Crucially, audiovisual services are excluded from the scope of the Regulation – at least for now. The Regulation includes a two-year review clause, which explicitly aims at reconsidering the inclusion of audiovisual services. In addition, a number of other EU initiatives are targeting audiovisual services with a view to facilitate the cross-border circulation of audiovisual works:

  • Under the Portability Regulation, already in force, online content service providers must allow consumers to access their portable online content services when they travel in the EU in the same way they access them at home. The cornerstone of this Regulation is a legal fiction: for copyright purposes, the subscriber who is temporarily present in a Member State will be deemed located in its Member State of residence.
  • The EU institutions are currently in trilogue discussions concerning the review of the SatCab Directive. Based on the country of origin principle (i.e. clearance of rights in the Member State of emission amounts to clearance for the whole EU), this 1993 Directive currently facilitates the cross-border provision of satellite broadcasting services. The purpose of the review is to extend the country of origin to cover online broadcasting. But the precise scope of the review remains unclear:  while the EC proposal initially meant to include content made available through catch-up TV and live streaming, the EU Parliament and the Council then suggested to water down the proposal and to exclude movies and TV shows. It is understood that the ongoing trilogues are precisely focusing on the scoping issue.
  • Finally, DG Comp’s Pay-TV investigation continues. In a nutshell, the EC is taking issue with a geoblocking clause included in Sky’s contracts with six studios (Disney, NBC Universal, Paramount Pictures, Sony, Twentieth Century Fox and Warner Bros). According to the EC, such clauses may amount to an impermissible ban on passive sales (to be noted: in its e-commerce sector inquiry, the EC emphasized that only those geoblocking restrictions that are contractually agreed may be caught by EU competition law; those that are unilaterally imposed cannot). To date, two studios have offered commitments to settle the probe, namely Paramount and Disney. The investigation continues with regards to the non-settling parties.

More to Come Soon?

Based on the above, there is little doubt that geoblocking in the audiovisual sector will likely be on the EU legislator radar after the parliamentary elections next year. But these initiatives will probably face an uphill battle, as they will have to strike a balance between the free circulation of audiovisual works in the EU, on the one hand, and the territorial limitations inherent to the current copyright framework, on the other hand – a task that has proved impossible so far. Against this background, the upcoming review of the Geoblocking Regulation will be worth following very closely.

 

Today, in four separate decisions, the European Commission (EC) fined consumer electronics manufacturers Asus, Denon & Marantz, Philips and Pioneer €111 million for imposing fixed or minimum resale prices on their online retailers, as well as limiting the ability of retailers to sell cross-border (see press release here).

The topic of vertical restraints is admittedly not new – quite the opposite, in fact. However, today’s decisions are highly relevant for businesses engaging into e-commerce, as they are the first ones to take stock of the EC’s findings in the recent e-commerce sector inquiry, in particular as far as pricing algorithms and monitoring softwares are concerned.

Background

Today’s announcement comes on the heels of the final report of the EC e-commerce sector inquiry, which the EC released in May 2017. The report flags a tendency for manufacturers to seek greater control over their online distribution networks, which in turn results in a number of antitrust issues in the online space, including:

  • The widespread use of pricing restrictions (resale price maintenance, or RPM), which affects 42% of the respondents to the inquiry. According to the EC, the online space is prone to such restrictions, due to the increased price transparency online as well as the use of pricing software that allow for the automatic adjustment of prices, based on the observed prices of competitors;
  • Geographic restrictions to sell, also known as geoblocking. According to the final report of the EC, such restrictions affect 11% of the respondents to the consumer goods section of the inquiry. They may be caught by Article 101 TFEU when adopted as part of an agreement between supplier and retailer – not when adopted unilaterally by the latter.

As a follow-up to the inquiry, the EC immediately announced the launch of several investigations into suspected anti-competitive vertical restraints in e-commerce in three sectors: consumer electronics (concluded today), video games and hotels (which are both ongoing).

First Glimpse Into RPM in the Digital Age

While the non-confidential version of the consumer electronics decisions will not be published before a few more weeks, if not months, the EC press release already provides useful practical guidance on RPM in the online space.

The RPM practices themselves took a fairly traditional form. Online retailers who would not follow the prices imposed by the manufacturers would face threats or sanctions, e.g. blocking of supplies. In addition, Pioneer backed its RPM policy with a limitation of cross-border sales in order to sustain different resale prices in different Member States.

More importantly, the effect of these RPM practices was amplified and maximized by the use of online tools:

  • Sophisticated monitoring tools allowed manufacturers to track deviations from the imposed price and to intervene swiftly in case of price decrease;
  • Since most online retailers use pricing algorithms that automatically adjust retail prices to those of competitors, the RPM practices impacted not only the distributors of the infringing parties, but the overall industry, thus leading to higher prices for consumers.

As a result of the above findings, the EC imposed significant fines: €63.5 million to Asus, € 7.7 million to Denon & Maratz, €29.8 million to Philips and €10.1 million to Pioneer. Interestingly, these fines include reductions for ‘providing evidence with significant added value and by expressly acknowledging the facts and the infringement’ ranging from 40 to 50%.  While the press release makes no reference to them, this language echoes that of the leniency and settlement procedures – which are strictly limited to cartels. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first time that the EC makes implicit use of these rules in the context of a vertical restraints.

More to Come

For the past decade, the EC largely left the enforcement of RPM in the hands of national competition authorities. These days are now over: more decisions are coming, and the EC is sending a clear signal that the risk of fine is more serious now than ever.

For businesses operating online, today’s decisions are a useful reminder that they should be extra careful when engaging with their online distributors. In this regard, while the use of pricing algorithms and monitoring softwares is lawful under EU competition law, they should never become instruments that support a RPM policy – a message that may be worth (re) conveying to your commercial teams.

 

Join Steptoe’s EU Competition team for a webinar on May 31, covering the opportunities and antitrust risks associated with bypassing distributors to sell directly to customers in Europe. In particular, we will discuss the growing trend of going “direct”, how to identify the related antitrust risks, and how to strike the right balance between direct and indirect channels. Participation is free of charge.

Date: May 31, 2018

Time: 4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. CET
(Click here for the time in your area)

Click here to register.

If you are unable to participate in the live webinar but would like to receive a link to the recording, please let us know by requesting here.

Featured Speakers:

A few days after the Coty judgment,[1] the German Federal Court of Justice[2] (Bundesgerichtshof or BGH) upheld the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf in the Asics case,[3] confirming that Asics, the sport shoes manufacturer, may not prevent its selective distributors from cooperating with price comparison engines to promote the Asics branded products.

1. Background

From 2012 to 2015, the German subsidiary of Asics set up a selective distribution system which imposed a number of limitations on the online sales activities by authorized dealers in Germany. In particular, Asics prohibited its authorized distributors from (i) selling through online marketplaces such as Amazon and eBay, (ii) using price comparison engines, and (iii) using Asics trademark on the distributor’s online search advertisements.

Continue Reading I Want to “Run” Free: Authorized Dealers Cannot Be Prevented from Using Price Comparison Websites

Following an inquiry in July 2017, the House of Lords’ European Union Committee published on February 2, 2018, a report titled – ‘Brexit: competition and State aid’ – on the future of the UK’s competition law regime after Brexit.

The House of Lords report provides a detailed account of the most pressing issues that the UK’s competition law regime is facing ahead of Brexit. It also shows the high levels of uncertainty that businesses operating between the EU and the UK face.

This uncertainty suggests that businesses should – at least for now – adopt a cautious approach, for example, when formulating their distribution and acquisition strategies in the UK.

Whatever the statutory changes to the UK’s competition law regime after Brexit are, EU law will still remain an important factor to consider when taking business decisions, especially because of the geographical proximity and close trading relationships between the UK and the EU. This means that going forward businesses need to have guidance.

Steptoe has years of experience in successfully advising businesses on their strategic decisions in the EU and the UK. Our experienced lawyers can help your business to successfully navigate the demands and potential opportunities of Brexit.  Continue Reading House of Lords Report on Brexit and Competition: What Does it Mean for Businesses?

Steptoe has been following the Coty case closely and is the reason why we held the first debate only 24 hours after the Court of Justice made its judgment. Therefore, we have been pleased to contribute to the developing debate by publishing our article on the Coty case for Kluwer’s Competition Law Blog.

Click here to visit their blog and to read our article.

24 hours after the delivery of the eagerly awaited Coty judgement, the Steptoe EU Competition team is pleased to invite you to an in-person event to debate with lead stakeholders on the consequences of this judgment for the online resale of branded goods in the EU.

The event will be held at our premises in Brussels on December 7 from 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm and it will also be video live streamed for those who cannot attend in person.

More information in this link.

(Participation is free of charge)

Are platform bans anti-competitive? While brand owners, distributors, platforms and the antitrust community are clinging to the edge of their seats waiting for the final determination from the European Court of Justice (CoJ) in the Coty judgment awaited on December 6, 2017, we are reporting on an interesting development in France on this topic.

On September 13, 2017, the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) delivered its judgment in the Caudalie case. The judgment overturns a previous ruling of the Paris Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel de Paris) which found that platform bans may be restrictive of competition. Check out our briefing to learn more about the judgment, as well as its practical implications (spoiler alert: Caudalie does not settle the debate on platform bans).