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

05.08.2021 NL law
Court rules ACM can use accidental evidence found in dawn raids

Short Reads - While skimming through employees’ chat conversations and e-mails, it is not uncommon for competition authorities to stumble across other potential antitrust violations, separate from the initial scope of the search. Companies should realise that when this happens, a competition authority does not necessarily have to turn a blind eye to evidence lawfully collected during a dawn raid which points at a separate antitrust infringement, as confirmed by the preliminary relief court in The Hague.

Read more

05.08.2021 NL law
Netherlands FDI regime protecting national security is getting closer

Short Reads - On 30 June 2021, a legislative proposal introducing an investment screening on grounds of national security in the Netherlands was submitted to the House of Representatives. The proposal introduces an ex ante and ex post screening mechanism for investment activities related to vital providers or companies active in sensitive technology in the Netherlands. Although the regime is not yet effective, parties to a potential transaction should already account for the potential (including retroactive) effects of the regime.

Read more

05.08.2021 EU law
CJEU clarifies jurisdiction for follow-on damage claims

Short Reads - The Court of Justice of the European Union recently further clarified which courts within the EU have jurisdiction to hear follow-on damage claims. This can be either the court of the place where the claimant purchased a cartelized product, or where the claimant has its registered office (domicile), or at a centralized court designated by the EU member state for specific types of cases.

Read more