Short Reads

District Court Amsterdam rules real estate platform Funda did not abuse its dominant position

District Court Amsterdam rules real estate platform Funda did not abu

District Court Amsterdam rules real estate platform Funda did not abuse its dominant position

03.04.2018 NL law

On 21 March 2018, the District Court of Amsterdam delivered its judgment in a dispute between two real estate associations (VBO Makelaars and NVM) over the online platform of Funda Real Estate (Funda). The Court dismissed VBO's claim that Funda abused its dominant position by applying discriminatory contract terms.

 

Funda owns the website www.funda.nl, which serves as an online real estate platform in the Netherlands. The Dutch Association of Real Estate Agents (NVM) is co-founder of the website and indirectly holds shares in Funda. Other real estate agencies such as VBO Makelaars (VBO) have agreements with Funda, which allow their members to post property on the Funda website. However, NVM members receive preferential treatment in terms of cost, use of website functionalities and the ranking of properties. VBO argued that Funda was abusing its dominant position by applying unequal terms to VBO.

To determine the relevant market and whether Funda had a dominant position on this market, the District Court appointed not less than three economic experts. On the basis of their expert advice, the District Court found that Funda had a dominant position on the online housing market in the Netherlands. With respect to the abuse, the District Court noted that VBO had to demonstrate that the alleged discrimination tended to distort the competitive position of VBO. Discrimination alone is insufficient to establish an abuse.

Relying on a recent opinion of Advocate General Wahl in the case of MEO/Autoridade da Concorrência, the District Court stated that whether the discrimination affected VBO's ability to exert competitive pressure should also be determined. To that end, it was necessary to examine the actual or potential effects of the conduct.

The District Court concluded that VBO had not shown that the discrimination in relation to the costs or the access to the site's functionalities tended to distort its competitive position. In relation to the preferential treatment of NVM agents' property listings, the expert advice also showed that there was no clear indication that this tended to distort VBO's competitive position. As a result, the District Court ruled that Funda had not abused its dominant position.

The case follows a trend where claimants that allege an abuse of a dominant position directly take their case before the civil courts, instead of submitting a complaint to the ACM. The benefit of taking the civil court route is that the case cannot be dismissed on the basis of a priority policy (like the ACM), but – as shown in this case – it remains difficult to establish the existence of an abuse.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of April 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

1.       District Court rules on the preliminary defences in CRT case

2.       First Dutch excessive pricing case in pharma may be expected soon

Team

Related news

24.09.2020 BE law
Stibbe hosts a webinar on dawn raids organised by IBJ/IJE

Seminar - On 24 September 2020, several Stibbe lawyers ​​​​​explain the rights and obligations of companies when confronted with announced or unannounced raids. What do to when, for example, tax authorities, the competition authorities, police services or a bailiff are at your doorstep?

Read more

03.09.2020 NL law
Home, but not alone: Commission may complete dawn raids from home

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has rejected Nexans’ appeal in the power cables cartel case. The Commission started the dawn raid at Nexans’ premises, but due to lack of time finished the raid at the Commission’s premises in Brussels. The ECJ found that the Commission can copy data and assess its relevance to the investigation at its own premises, while safeguarding companies’ rights of defence.

Read more

03.09.2020 NL law
COVID-19 impacts level and payment of antitrust fines

Short Reads - As well as granting companies leeway on certain COVID-19 initiated collaborations (see our May 2020 newsletter), the coronavirus outbreak has also led competition authorities to take a more lenient stance towards fine calculations and payments. The European Commission has extended the due date for fine payments by an additional three months in response to potential short-term liquidity issues brought about by the pandemic. Similar reasons led the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeal Tribunal to reduce a EUR 1 million cartel fine to just EUR 10,000.

Read more

03.09.2020 NL law
The ACM’s Green Deal: achieving sustainability via competition law?

Short Reads - The ACM has issued draft guidelines on the application of competition law to sustainability agreements. Companies entering into agreements that restrict competition but contribute to governmental sustainability objectives – i.e. lower CO2 emissions – may expect more room for collaboration. The proposed framework would allow these types of agreements if their anti-competitive effects are outweighed by their environmental benefits to society as a whole (rather than to in-market consumers only, as under the existing framework).

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more