Articles

German Competition Authority fined ASICS for restricting Internet sales of its distributors

German Competition Authority fined ASICS for restricting Internet sales of its distributors

German Competition Authority fined ASICS for restricting Internet sales of its distributors

02.02.2016 NL law

On 13 January 2016, the German Competition Authority ("Bundeskartellamt") published the non-confidential version of the infringement decision relating to ASICS, a manufacturer of sports clothing and running shoes. ASICS was fined for restricting Internet sales of authorised distributors in its selective distribution system between 2012 and 2015. The decision shows the continued strict approach of the Bundeskartellamt in the field of e-commerce.

In 2012, ASICS introduced a new selective distribution system in which it prohibited its distributors from using ASICS's brand name in online advertisements and banned them from partaking in price-comparison websites. Moreover, distributors were not allowed to sell ASICS goods on Internet platforms such as Amazon, Bol.com or eBay.

The Bundeskartellamt entered into negotiations with several sporting goods manufacturers over their distribution policies in 2013. During these discussions, an amicable solution was reached with Adidas but no compromise could be made with ASICS. Consequently, the Bundeskartellamt adopted an infringement decision on 26 August 2015 and subsequently a non-confidential version was published on 13 January 2016.

In its decision, the Bundeskartellamt made clear that constraints on the online use of the ASICS brand name and the ban on the use of price comparison websites were prone to restrict intra-brand competition of ASICS goods. In this regard, specific attention was paid to the effects on small and medium sized distributors, who cannot compete effectively without access to price comparison websites and advertising services such as Google AdWords. The Bundeskartellamt ultimately did not find an infringement relating to the ban on the use of Internet platforms but suggested that such restriction was not allowed.

The strict approach of the Bundeskartellamt stands in stark contrast with the attitude of certain other national competition authorities ("NCAs") in this field. For example, the president of the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets stated that regulatory authorities need to exercise restraint in qualifying vertical agreements, which restrict Internet sales, as hardcore violations of competition law. Although the European Commission recently commenced a sector enquiry into e-commerce, the diverging approaches of NCAs to restrictions of Internet sales are unlikely to disappear soon. As such, companies may want to tailor their distribution policies to the national competition laws.

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

  1. Court of Justice confirmed independence of EU and national leniency programmes
  2. Court of Justice reduced fine imposed on Galp Energía España and acknowledged excessive duration of General Court proceedings
  3. Court of Justice clarified the concept of a concerted practice for unilateral announcements
  4. Court of Justice dismissed Toshiba's appeal in the power transformers cartel case
  5. Belgium's "excess profit" tax scheme qualified as illegal state aid

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