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

10.10.2018 NL law
Ongevraagd advies Raad van State: normering van geautomatiseerde overheidsbesluitvorming

Short Reads - Op 31 augustus 2018 heeft de Afdeling advisering van de Raad van State (hierna: "Afdeling advisering") een 'Ongevraagd advies over de effecten van de digitalisering voor de rechtsstatelijke verhoudingen' betreffende de positie en de bescherming van de burger tegen een "iOverheid" uitgebracht. Het gebeurt niet vaak dat de Afdeling advisering zo een ongevraagd advies uitbrengt. Dit onderstreept het belang van de voortdurend in ontwikkeling zijnde technologie en digitalisering in relatie tot de verhouding tussen de overheid en de maatschappij.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
UK Court upholds fine against Ping for online sales ban

Short Reads - On 7 September 2018, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) upheld the UK Competition and Market Authority's (CMA) decision fining Ping Europe Limited, a manufacturer of golf clubs, for violating EU and UK competition law by prohibiting two UK retailers from selling Ping golf clubs online. While the CAT reduced the fine from £1.45 million to £1.25 million, it confirmed that outright online sales bans in the context of selective distribution agreements are restrictive of competition by object.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart card chips cartel back to the General Court

Short Reads - On 26 September 2018, the European Court of Justice partially set aside the judgment of the General Court in the smart card chips cartel case. Infineon had argued that the General Court wrongfully assessed only five out of eleven allegedly unlawful contacts. The Court agreed with Infineon insofar as its argument related to the amount of the fine imposed. Philips had also appealed the General Court judgment but that appeal was dismissed in its entirety meaning that the Court of Justice upheld the European Commission's decision and fine.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal annuls mail market analysis decision

Short Reads - On 3 September 2018, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) annulled the market analysis decision regarding 24-hour business mail issued by the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) on 27 July 2017. In appeal proceedings filed by PostNL, the CBb ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate that digital mail was not part of the relevant market for 24-hour business mail.

Read more

26.09.2018 EU law
Algemene bepalingen inzake oneerlijke handelspraktijken wijken voor specifiekere regelgeving

Articles - In geval van strijdigheid tussen de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken[1] (en bij uitbreiding de omzettingsbepalingen in Boek VI WER) en andere Europeesrechtelijke voorschriften betreffende specifieke aspecten van oneerlijke handelspraktijken, hebben deze laatste voorrang (zie artikel 3, lid 4 van de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken). Dat dit tot interessante discussies kan leiden, bleek uit een recent arrest van het Hof van Justitie[2].

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