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

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more