Short Reads

District Court of Rotterdam upheld ACM's decision to clear lottery merger

District Court of Rotterdam upheld ACM's decision to clear lottery mer

District Court of Rotterdam upheld ACM's decision to clear lottery merger

01.08.2017 NL law

On 27 July 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam dismissed the appeal brought by Lottovate Nederland B.V. and Stichting Speel Verantwoord against the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets' (ACM) clearance decision in the lottery merger. The District Court confirmed that by resorting to a regression analysis the ACM had used an academically sound method to assess the nature and degree of competition between the merging parties. Using this method, the ACM correctly concluded that competition between the merging parties was very limited.

In December 2015, after a Phase II investigation, the ACM cleared the merger between Stichting Exploitatie Nederlandse Staatsloterij (SENS) and Stichting Nationale Sporttotalisator (SNS) [see our January 2016 Newsletter]. According to the ACM, competition between the merging parties was very limited and customers would not easily switch from one party to the other when (sales) conditions changed. This is mainly a result of strict regulation, which required companies in each market segment to apply for a specific licence. As a consequence, every license-holder on the market operates within its own market segment (with its own range of games and target audience) and there are limited incentives to compete with other segments. For these reasons, the ACM concluded that the merger would not significantly impede effective competition on both the lotteries and lottos market, and the potential online market.

Lottovate and Stichting Speel Verantwoord appealed the ACM decision by arguing, among other things, that the ACM (i) erroneously left open the precise market definition and (ii) did not appropriately examine the effects of the merger on the markets for lotteries and lottos.

On the first point, the District Court reiterated that defining the relevant market is a starting point and tool for analysing market power, but it is not a goal in itself. It is established practice for both the ACM and the European Commission to leave open the exact market definition if the concentration does not raise competition concerns under any plausible market delineation. The District Court concluded that the ACM had sufficiently substantiated why the precise market definition could be left open in the case at hand.

On the second point, the District Court found that the ACM had appropriately analysed the market data and concluded on solid grounds that competition between the notifying parties was very limited. The Court found that the appellants arguments against the scope of the ACM's study were unfounded and effectively rebutted by the ACM. The District Court more generally considered the method used by the ACM ('regression analysis') as valuable and academically sound. The accuracy of that method had also been confirmed by an independent economic expert. Furthermore, the ACM sufficiently explained why it chose not to take into account the results of a study into consumer preferences.

Overall, the District Court concluded that the ACM's clearance decision should be upheld.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of August 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

1. Court of Justice dismisses Toshiba's appeal against the gas-insulated switchgear fine
2. Recent enforcement action demonstrates an increasing focus on compliance with procedural EU merger rules
3. Trade and Industry Appeals annuls fine imposed on real estate traders
4. ACM closes probe into Fox over live-soccer TV rights due to lack of evidence of consumer harm
5. District Court of The Hague rules on ACM's powers to select and inspect digital data

Team

Related news

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

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

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

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

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

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