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

03.04.2016 EU 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

03.08.2022 EU law
Gotta catch ‘em all? Upward referral of ‘killer acquisitions’ upheld

Short Reads - Companies involved in intended or completed M&A transactions falling below EU and national merger notification thresholds should beware that their deals may still catch the European Commission’s eye. The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision to accept a national referral request regarding Illumina’s acquisition of Grail: a transaction not triggering any of the notification thresholds within the EEA.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Highest Dutch court: the postman may still ring twice?

Short Reads - The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy was wrong to unblock the ACM’s prohibited merger between postal operators PostNL and Sandd on grounds of public interest. According to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb), the Minister cannot substitute the ACM’s assessment for its own when considering public interest reasons. Since the Minister did do so in this particular case, the CBb annulled the Minister’s merger clearance.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Purely commercial interest also a legitimate interest? Council of State leaves the question unanswered.

Short Reads - On 27 July 2022, the Council of State confirmed that the Dutch Data Protection Authority wrongly imposed a €575,000 fine on VoetbalTV. But the Council did not answer the question whether the AP rightly or wrongly believes that a purely commercial interest cannot be a legitimate interest within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Foreign Subsidies Regulation crosses the finish line

Short Reads - On 30 June 2022, the European Parliament and the European Council reached agreement on the final text of the Foreign Subsidies Regulation. Adding to the regulatory burdens, this Regulation creates a notification obligation for companies that receive subsidies from non-EU governments in transactions or public procurement procedures. 

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Zuiver commercieel belang ook gerechtvaardigd belang: Raad van State laat zich er niet over uit

Short Reads - Op 27 juli 2022 heeft de Raad van State bevestigd dat de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens onterecht een boete van € 575.000 aan VoetbalTV heeft opgelegd. De hoop bestond dat de Afdeling antwoord zou geven op de vraag of de AP terecht of onterecht meent dat een zuiver commercieel belang géén gerechtvaardigd belang kan zijn in de zin van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming. Het antwoord op deze vraag blijft echter uit.  

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Take note(s): Qualcomm’s EUR 1 billion dominance abuse fine quashed

Short Reads - The General Court annulled the Commission’s EUR 1 billion fine imposed on Qualcomm for abuse of dominance on the LTE chipsets market. In addition to finding fault with the Commission’s foreclosure analysis of Qualcomm’s alleged exclusivity payments, the General Court found that the Commission’s procedural irregularities alone would have sufficed to set the Commission’s decision aside.

Read more