Short Reads

Highest German Court rules that ASICS's ban on using price comparison websites violates EU competition law

Highest German Court rules that ASICS's ban on using price comparison

Highest German Court rules that ASICS's ban on using price comparison websites violates EU competition law

01.02.2018 EU law

On 19 January 2018, the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) published its judgment concerning an appeal brought by shoe manufacturer ASICS against a fining decision. The FCJ ruled that ASICS had infringed competition law by prohibiting its retailers from participating in price comparison websites. The judgment confirms the strict approach of German courts relating to vertical online sales restrictions.

 

In August 2015, the German competition authority fined ASICS for restricting internet sales by authorised distributors in its selective distribution system [see our February 2016 Newsletter]. Among other things, the authority objected to a clause which prohibited authorised distributors from participating in price-comparison websites. After ASICS had unsuccessfully appealed the fining decision before the District Court of Düsseldorf, the case was brought before the FCJ.

The FCJ first sets out that price-comparison websites are an important tool for consumers to help them make a choice given the large variety of products, suppliers and prices found on the internet. At the same time, price comparison websites are often used by small retailers to attract customers via low-priced offers. Against this background, the FCJ ruled that ASICS's absolute ban on participating in price-comparison websites (e.g. irrespective of the quality of the price comparison tool) constituted a restriction of competition which could not be exempted under the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation.

Interestingly enough, the FCJ spent some time distinguishing the facts in ASICS from the facts in the European Court of Justice's Coty-judgment. In the Coty-judgment, the Court of Justice ruled that suppliers of luxury goods may prohibit their authorised distributors from selling on third party internet platforms such as eBay [see our December 2017 Newsletter]. The FCJ, however, ruled that this reasoning could not be applied to ASICS's selective distribution system as ASICS' shoes are not luxury goods and ASICS, unlike Coty, used a combination of contractual clauses to restrict the online sales of its distributors (e.g. that distributors are not allowed to use ASICS's brand name in online advertisements). Accordingly, the FCJ dismisses ASICS's appeal. 

The FCJ's judgment shows that restrictions on the use of price comparison tools are not necessarily treated equally to online platform bans under EU competition rules. This is in line with the European Commission's view, which stated in its e-commerce sector inquiry report that: '[M]arketplaces and price comparison tools differ in a number of respects' and that in a selective distribution system 'absolute price comparison tool bans which are not linked to quality criteria, potentially restrict the effective use of the internet as a sales channel and may amount to a hardcore restriction'. 

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

  1. Dissemination of misleading information on the safety of a medical product can be a "by object" infringement
  2. Qualifying dawn raid documents as 'in scope' or 'out of scope': marginal review by Belgian Court

Team

Related news

05.06.2018 EU law
New EU rules to reduce marine pollution

Articles - Plastic pollution has become a key environmental concern. And it is not surprising why: according to a recent study, of the 8.3 billion metric tons of plastics that have been produced so far, 6.3 billion metric tons has become plastic waste. Of this plastic waste, 79% is accumulating either in landfill sites or in the oceans. Therefore, on 28 May 2018 the EU Commission issued a new draft Directive aimed at tackling marine litter by addressing single use plastic items and abandoned fishing gear.

Read more

01.06.2018 EU law
European Court of Justice rules EY did not violate stand-still obligation in Danish merger

Short Reads - On 31 May 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that Ernst & Young (EY) did not illegally implement the acquisition of KPMG Denmark (KPMG DK) before obtaining antitrust clearance.  Following the announcement of the transaction, KPMG DK terminated a cooperation agreement. According to the Court, that act cannot be regarded as a violation of the stand-still obligation since it did not contribute to the change of control of the target undertaking.

Read more

01.06.2018 EU law
District Court of Amsterdam declines jurisdiction in competition law damages case

Short Reads - On 9 May 2018, the District Court of Amsterdam declined to accept jurisdiction over Athenian Brewery (AB), a Greek subsidiary of Heineken, in a civil case brought by competitor Macedonian Thrace Brewery (MTB). In the same judgment, the Amsterdam District Court did accept jurisdiction over the alleged claim brought by MTB against Heineken N.V. (Heineken), for the reason that Heineken is based in Amsterdam. The case against Heineken will therefore continue to the next procedural phase, in which the parties will debate the merits of MTB’s alleged claim against Heineken.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring