Articles

Initial findings of Commission's e-commerce sector inquiry show widespread use of geo-blocking

Initial findings of Commission's e-commerce sector inquiry show widespread use of geo-blocking

Initial findings of Commission's e-commerce sector inquiry show widespread use of geo-blocking

04.04.2016 NL law

On 18 March 2016, the European Commission published its initial findings on the existence of geo-blocking practices in the e-commerce sector. This report is part of the ongoing sector inquiry into e-commerce, which was launched by the Commission in May 2015.

The Commission's focus is on (i) retailers selling consumer goods, including clothing, electronics, sports and healthcare products and (ii) providers of digital content, such as films, TV and music. Geo-blocking refers to the practice of restricting cross-border sales via the internet, which can manifest itself in multiple ways. Retailers can prevent online shoppers from purchasing consumer goods on the basis of, for example, the shopper's location or country of residence. Digital content providers can prevent consumers from accessing digital content services, which mainly occurs on the basis of the consumer's IP address.  

The conclusion of the Commission is that geo-blocking is widespread throughout the EU. Its initial findings show that 38% of the responding retailers selling consumer goods are involved in geo-blocking practices, against 68% of the responding digital content providers.

The Commission acknowledges that the use of geo-blocking does not automatically imply that there are anticompetitive concerns. Geo-blocking may restrict competition if it is linked to agreements between suppliers and distributors. In contrast, geo-blocking falls outside the scope of EU competition law if it results from a unilateral decision of a non-dominant company.

These initial findings are the first results of the e-commerce sector inquiry. The Commission expects to present a more detailed analysis in a preliminary report in mid-2016, which will be followed by a public consultation. This report will not only cover geo-blocking, but also other potential competition concerns for e-commerce markets. A final Commission report is scheduled for early 2017. The Commission already indicated that it will take a close look at anticompetitive behaviour in the e-commerce sector, which could lead to enforcement measures on a case-by-case basis. If you operate an online distribution network, this could be a good reason to consider possible competition law compliance measures, including a re-assessment of your contracts and business practices.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of April 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

1. Court of Justice annulled Commission's requests for information in cement cartel case
2.
ACM fined cold-storage companies and their executives EUR 12.5 million for breaching competition law during merger negotiations
3.
Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal confirmed that ACM can use EU-wide turnover in calculating the fines in onion cartel case
4.
New Leniency Guidelines applicable in Belgium since 22 March 2016
5.
Belgian Constitutional Court rules that actions for antitrust damages cannot be time-barred before the final infringement decision is rendered

Team

Related news

02.04.2020 NL law
ACM played high stakes and lost: no more fixed network access regulation

Short Reads - The ACM’s failure to meet the requisite standard of proof has led to the fixed networks of Dutch telecom providers KPN and VodafoneZiggo being free from access regulation. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate the existence of collective dominance, and that KPN and VodafoneZiggo would tacitly coordinate their behaviour absent regulation.

Read more

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
Claims assigned to a litigation vehicle: who needs to prove what?

Short Reads - Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit. The Dutch legal system allows companies and individuals to assign their claims to a “litigation vehicle” or “claims vehicle” that bundles those claims into a single action. In its decisions of 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is up to litigation vehicles to prove that the assignments can be invoked against the debtor. 

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
EU competition policy agenda: full to the brim

Short Reads - The European Commission’s competition policy agenda stretches to 2024 and contains plans for many new or revised rules and guidelines. Recent publications, such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, shed more light on the Commission’s initiatives and their possible impact on parties from both inside and outside the European Union (EU). These new initiatives include temporary state aid rules to address the effects of the Corona crisis, consultations on the Block Exemption Regulations, and new measures in respect of (primarily) third-country companies.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring