Short Reads

European Commission puts price signalling on the agenda

European Commission puts price signalling on the agenda

European Commission puts price signalling on the agenda

03.10.2016 NL law

On 31 August 2016, the European Commission published its decision rendering the commitments offered by fourteen container liner shipping companies legally binding. The Commission closed its formal investigation that it started in 2011 without finding any competition law infringements. However, the Commission did establish that the practice of publishing future price increases for identified trade routes could potentially allow competitors to coordinate their pricing behavior.  

The carriers regularly announced their intended future price increases for freight services on their websites, via the press, or in other ways. These announcements indicated the amount of the increase per transported container unit, the relevant trade route and the planned implementation date. The Commission found that after such a price announcement, some or all of the other carriers announced similar intended rate increases for the same or similar routes and implementation dates. Announced price increases were sometimes postponed or modified by some of the container shipping companies, possibly aligning them with the announcements made by other carriers.

The Commission had concerns that the price announcements were of little value for customers, as they did not provide information on the new full prices they would be asked to pay. In addition, the announcements only had little committal value, so customers could not rely on them when making purchasing decisions. Furthermore, the Commission expressed concern that the carriers' practice may have allowed the companies to explore each other's pricing intentions and coordinate their behaviour. According to the Commission, this may have enabled the carriers to 'test' the implementation of a potential price increase, thereby reducing strategic uncertainty about the companies' future behaviour.

In order to address the Commission's competition concerns, the carriers offered commitments pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. The parties offered that price announcements would: (i) contain at least the main elements of the total price, such as the base rate and security and handling charges, the services to which they apply and the period to which they relate; (ii) not be made more than 31 days before their implementation date; and (iii) be binding on the carriers for their validity period as maximum prices.

Public price announcements are common practice in several sectors and the Commission has not taken action against price signalling for a long time. However, in line with the ACM's views in the mobile operators case in the Netherlands, the Commission's commitment decision shows that announcements on future commercial conditions warrant extra caution, such as providing definite information that is valuable for customers.

 

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

  1. Court of Justice ends Pilkington's fight against fine in the car glass cartel
  2. General Court upholds Commission's decision that reverse payment settlements constitute a 'by object' infringement
  3. European Commission puts price signalling on the agenda
  4. European Commission orders Ireland to recover illegal tax benefits worth up to €13 billion from Apple
  5. Commission publishes Preliminary Report on the e-commerce sector inquiry
  6. Brussels Court of Appeal confirms interim measures against exclusive TV broadcasting rights

Team

Related news

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Short Reads - The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring