interIn this briefing, we describe how certain employment practices, such as no-poach or wage-fixing agreements, may infringe competition law, a topic that has recently taken centre stage in the US and is also firmly, although more discretely, on the radar of antitrust authorities in Europe, but perhaps not yet on that of companies. Here is why it should be.
It is nothing short of a Christmas miracle. After years of quasi-radio silence, the Pay-TV case has finally made significant progress and has reached not one, but two significant milestones: on December 12, the General Court published a judgment largely confirming the European Commission’s (EC) approach of the case, i.e. that geoblocking clauses in broadcasting contracts amount to a restriction of competition by object (case T-873/16). A week later, on December 20, NBC Universal, Sony Pictures, Warner Bros and Sky offered commitments to settle the case. The EC is currently market testing the commitments.
These developments suggest that the EC is on track to win a major battle against geoblocking in the audiovisual sector. Below we take a closer look at these developments, as well as their potential implications on the future of the EU broadcasting industry.
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.
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 proposal, put forward by the Commission in September 2017, aims at protecting key strategic industries and assets in Europe whilst maintaining the EU’s appeal to foreign investors.
While other countries such as Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan and the US, as well as 12 of the 28 EU Member States already have FDI screening mechanisms in place, it is the first time that such a mechanism is introduced at the EU level.
The proposal is a response to growing concerns in the EU – especially from France, Germany and Italy – that state-owned or state-controlled foreign investors, notably from China, are increasingly acquiring control over high-tech companies and critical infrastructure in Europe.
The EU framework will not impose an obligation on Member States to establish FDI screening mechanisms but rather sets out common rules for Member States that already have such mechanisms in place or that are willing to create them. In any case, the prohibition of FDIs on security or public order grounds will still be decided at the national level.
Formal approval of the proposed Regulation by the European Parliament and the Council is expected by March 2019, ahead of the upcoming EU elections in May 2019.
Brexit may well be around the corner, but antitrust enforcement is still alive and well on the other side of the Channel. On November 2, 2018, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the UK national competition authority, announced that it had provisionally found that ComparetheMarket, a home insurance price comparison site, may have infringed both UK and EU competition law by inserting wide most favored nation clauses (Wide MFN) in its contracts with home insurers.
Want to learn more? Check out our briefing here.
With Halloween around the corner, the French Competition Authority (FCA) is revisiting chainsaw massacre: on October 24, 2018, it adopted a decision imposing a 7 million euros fine on chainsaw manufacturer Stihl for imposing a de facto ban on online sales to its distributors (see press release here). Even more importantly, contrasting with previous French cases, the Stihl decision also clears a platform ban that the manufacturer imposed on its distributors, thus extending the reach of the Coty judgment well beyond the luxury world.
Want to learn more? Check our briefing here.
On 25 July 2018, Advocate General (AG) Kokott issued a non-binding Opinion in case C-265/17 P, Commission v United Parcel Service, advising the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) to dismiss the Commission’s appeal against the judgement of the General Court (GC) that annulled the Commission’s decision to block the proposed acquisition of TNT by UPS.
UPS notified the proposed acquisition of TNT for approximately EUR 5 billion on 15 June 2012. More than six months later, on 30 January 2013 the Commission blocked the proposed merger based on concerns that it would lead to a significant impediment of effective competition (SIEC) on the market for international intra-EEA express deliveries for small packages in 15 Member States.
On 7 March 2017 the GC issued a favourable judgement for UPS (case T-194/13, United Parcel Service v Commission). The Court found that the Commission breached UPS’s rights of defence by relying on the latest version of an economic analysis which was not shared with the merging parties before the merger was blocked. The Commission appealed the GC’s judgement on 16 May 2017.
In the meantime, TNT was acquired by FedEx for EUR 4 billion, in January 2016, in a deal that received unconditional approval by the Commission. While UPS may have lost the chance to consolidate its express deliveries business with TNT, AG Kokott’s favourable Opinion will arguably boosts UPS’s chances to win an action for damages for EUR 1.7 billion against the Commission filed by UPS in February 2018 (case T-834/17, United Parcel Service v Commission).
AG Kokott’s Opinion, which is largely in line with the GC’s judgment, provides an important reminder – especially to the Commission – that the rights of defence should be upheld without excuses, including in merger control proceedings.
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.
In an unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has gutted the Second Circuit’s rule on deference to a foreign government’s interpretations of its law, holding that a federal court determining foreign law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 should accord “respectful consideration” to a foreign government’s submission, but a court “is not bound to accord conclusive effect” to these statements.
The case is Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., which began as a multi-district class action alleging price fixing claims vitamin C exports sold to U.S. companies. Initially, plaintiffs won at a jury trial after the district court refused to credit the Chinese government’s statements that it compelled the defendants to fix the price and limit the supply of vitamin C. Then, the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the district court was “bound to defer” to the Chinese government’s interpretation of its laws when the latter “directly participates” in U.S. proceedings through a “sworn evidentiary proffer regarding the construction and the effect of its laws and regulations,” as long as it is reasonable under the circumstances presented.
As previewed in our earlier analysis, this case has important repercussions for any business involved in cross-border transactions. We explore these further below in light of the Supreme Court opinion.