Short Reads

European Commission accepts Amazon's commitments in e-book probe

European Commission accepts Amazon's commitments in e-book probe

European Commission accepts Amazon's commitments in e-book probe

01.06.2017 NL law

On 4 May 2017, the European Commission announced its decision to make the commitments offered by Amazon legally binding. Under these commitments, Amazon (the largest distributor of e-books in Europe) will no longer enforce or introduce a variety of "most favoured nation" (MFN) clauses in its distribution agreements with e-book publishers in Europe.

MFN clauses – otherwise known as price parity clauses – are designed to ensure that a buyer's counterparty will offer its services under terms that are at least as favourable as those offered by the seller to any other buyer. In recent years, MFN clauses have been the subject of scrutiny in numerous investigations by national competition authorities, most notably in the online hotel booking sector [see our October 2013 and May 2017 Newsletters]. The main concern associated with MFN clauses is that they dampen competition and undermine market entry, ultimately resulting in higher prices for consumers.

In June 2015, the Commission initiated proceedings to examine certain contract terms in Amazon's e-book distribution agreements. The Commission's preliminary assessment at the end of 2016 concluded that Amazon may be dominant in the relevant markets for the retail distribution of English and German language e-books to consumers in the EEA. The assessment expressed concern that Amazon may have abused its potentially dominant position.

The Commission's concerns focus not only on price but also non-price related MFN clauses. The relevant MFN clauses require publishers to inform Amazon about more favourable or alternative terms offered to Amazon's competitors and/or to offer Amazon similar (or better) terms and conditions as those offered to Amazon's competitors. Examples include:

  • Business Model Parity clauses, requiring publishers to notify and offer Amazon alternative business models that have been made available to e-book retailers other than Amazon.
  • Selection Parity clauses, requiring publishers to make available to Amazon a given e-book as a result of that e-book being supplied to any other e-book retailer.
  • Agency Price Parity clauses, requiring publishers to set an agency price on Amazon that is similar or better than the price set on any other e-book retailer.
  • Discount Pool provisions, providing a 'pool' of credits, calculated on the basis of differences between prices set on Amazon and prices set on competing platforms, that Amazon may use at its discretion to discount agency prices for any e-book supplied on its platform.
  • Notification provisions, requiring publishers to notify Amazon if different alternative business models, e-books, features, promotions or lower prices are made available to Amazon's competitors.

According to the Commission, the MFN clauses under scrutiny may be capable of weakening competition at the e-book distribution level, deterring entry or expansion by (potential) competitors of Amazon and/or strengthening Amazon's potentially already-dominant position, leading to less choice, less innovation and higher prices for consumers. Importantly, the Commission held that each of the clauses "represent, in and of themselves, a potential abuse of Amazon's dominant position in the relevant markets in the EEA" (emphasis added).

To meet the Commission's concerns, Amazon offered not to enforce or introduce the parity clauses and notification provisions in e-book distribution agreements and to allow publishers to terminate e-book contracts that contain Discount Pool provisions. These final commitments apply for a period of five years and to any e-book that Amazon distributes in the EEA. If Amazon breaks these commitments, the Commission can impose a fine of up to 10% of the company's worldwide turnover, without having to prove an infringement of the EU antitrust rules.

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

  1. Recent enforcement action emphasizes the importance of compliance with procedural EU merger rules
  2. European Commission publishes final report on e-commerce sector inquiry 
  3. European Commission issues new rules for State aid to ports, airports, culture and the outermost regions
  4. District Court of Amsterdam rules on the validity of the assignments and prescription of CDC's claims for damage in sodium chlorate cartel
  5. Belgian Competition Authority fines undertakings for bid-rigging in railway tender

Team

Related news

09.01.2020 NL law
Deleting WhatsApp chats during dawn raids may cost you dearly

Short Reads - Companies should be aware that the Dutch competition authority (ACM) will not only examine electronic records and emails, but can also check WhatsApp messages during dawn raids. The ACM recently imposed a fine of EUR 1.84 million on a company for non-cooperation with a dawn raid; its highest fine so far for non-cooperation. Several of the company’s employees had left WhatsApp groups and deleted chats before handing over their mobile phones for inspection.

Read more

16.01.2020 NL law
De Amsterdamse milieuzone voor brom- en snorfietsen: voertuigen van een bepaald jaar weren is mogelijk bij ontbreken van een redelijk alternatief

Short Reads - ABRvS 20 november 2019, ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:3865 Deze blog is het vierde deel in een reeks Stibbeblogs over gemeentelijke milieuzones. In 2017 oordeelde de Afdeling over de milieuzone voor personen- en bestelauto’s met dieselmotoren in Utrecht. In 2018 presenteerde de staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat haar beleid voor harmonisatie van uiteenlopende gemeentelijke milieuzones. Een jaar geleden maakten wij in een FAQ de balans op over de harmonisatie van milieuzones.

Read more

09.01.2020 NL law
Access to the file in Dutch competition procedures: too little too late?

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM’s and European Commission’s approach to access to the file are not aligned. According to an interim relief judge, the ACM cannot be forced to grant a company access to a broader set of documents in competition procedures. A potential error in the administrative procedure can be remedied before a court at a later stage. This is different to the right to access to the Commission’s file during administrative procedures, as acknowledged in EU case law.

Read more

10.01.2020 NL law
Is het mededingingsrecht de reddingsboei van zwakke zzp’ers?

Articles - Het toenemende aantal zzp'ers heeft ook mededingingsrechtelijke gevolgen. Volgens de ACM werkt de markt namelijk niet goed als zzp'ers door lage uurtarieven onder het bestaansminimum komen. Jan Truijens Martinez en Simone Evans bespreken in het Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsrecht in Context hoe eventuele belemmeringen die het mededingingsrecht opwerpt bij de bescherming van zzp'ers kunnen worden beperkt en of het mededingingsrecht eigenlijk wel het juiste instrument daarvoor is? 

Read more

09.01.2020 NL law
Competition rules and globalisation to face off in 2020

Short Reads - 2020 will likely revolve around the question whether competition rules should yield to globalisation and digitisation, with suggestions ranging from mere tweaks to competition rules to complementary regulation. Greater cooperation across data protection, consumer protection and competition law appears inevitable. Speedier solutions in more informal settings may become a reality, alongside more frequent use of behavioural remedies.

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