Short Reads

Recent enforcement action emphasizes the importance of compliance with procedural EU merger rules

Recent enforcement action emphasizes the importance of compliance wit

Recent enforcement action emphasizes the importance of compliance with procedural EU merger rules

01.06.2017 NL law

On 18 May 2017, the EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager stressed the importance for companies involved in mergers of complying with the EU merger rules. By imposing a fine on Facebook for providing misleading information during the WhatsApp takeover and sending a Statement of Objections to Altice for implementing a deal prior to obtaining its approval, the European Commission shows that it will be very attentive to any violations of its procedural rules.

Facebook/WhatsApp

On 18 May 2017, the European Commission imposed a fine of EUR 110 million on Facebook for providing misleading information during its WhatsApp acquisition. Under the EU Merger Regulation, the Commission may impose fines up to 1% of the aggregate turnover of companies that, intentionally or negligently, supply incorrect or misleading information in a notification process. Interestingly, this is the first case where the Commission has imposed a fine for submission of misleading information since the 2004 EU Merger Regulation came into effect.

In December 2016, the Commission sent a Statement of Objections to Facebook alleging that it had provided misleading information in relation to the possibility of automatically matching user accounts on both platforms. Facebook indicated both in its merger notification and in a reply to a request for information that it would be unable to establish a reliable automated matching between the two companies' user accounts. However, two years after the notification, WhatsApp announced an update to its terms of service and privacy policy, including the option of linking WhatsApp users' numbers with Facebook users' identities. The Commission considered that contrary to Facebook's statements, the technical possibility of automatically matching Facebook's and WhatsApp's users ID already existed in 2014, which was known by Facebook's staff.

In calculating the fine, the Commission took into account that Facebook had committed two separate infringements (by providing misleading information in both its notification and in a reply to a request for information). According to the Commission, these infringements were serious because it was prevented from having all relevant information to assess the acquisition. In addition, the Commission found that Facebook staff was aware of the user matching option and that it was relevant for the Commission's assessment. Therefore, Facebook's breach of the procedural rules was at least negligent. Finally, mitigating circumstances were taken into account because Facebook cooperated with the Commission during the infringement proceedings. The Commission decision has no impact on the 2014 decision to authorise the acquisition.

Altice/PT Portugal

On 18 May 2017, the European Commission sent a Statement of Objections to Altice, alleging that it had violated the EU Merger Regulation by implementing its acquisition of telecommunications operator PT Portugal before the notification or approval by the Commission (gun jumping). Under the EU Merger Regulation, a merger or an acquisition should be notified to the Commission and should not be implemented unless it has been cleared by the Commission.

On 25 February 2015, Altice notified the Commission of its intention to purchase PT Portugal and on 20 April 2015, the Commission cleared the transaction subject to conditions. In the Statement of Objections, the Commission expressed the preliminary view that Altice had jumped the gun and implemented the transaction before the Commission's clearance decision and in some instances before even the notification to the Commission. More specifically, the Commission considered that the purchase agreement signed by the two companies enabled Altice to exercise decisive influence over PT before the notification or clearance of the transaction and that in some cases Altice actually did so.

If the Commission concludes that there was a violation, it could impose a fine of up to 10% of Altice's annual worldwide turnover. Altice, through its subsidiary Numericable, has been previously found guilty by the French Competition Authority for jumping the gun. On 8 November 2016, the French Competition Authority imposed a record fine of EUR 80 million on Altice and its subsidiary.

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

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

07.02.2020 BE law
Het finale Belgische ‘nationaal energie- en klimaatplan’ en de Belgische langetermijnstrategie: het geduld van de Commissie op de proef gesteld?

Articles - Op 31 december 2019 diende België, nog net op tijd, zijn definitieve nationaal energie- en klimaatplan (NEKP) in bij de Commissie. Het staat nu al vast dat het Belgische NEKP niet op applaus zal worden onthaald door de Commissie. Verder laat ook de Belgische langetermijnstrategie op zich wachten. Wat zijn de gevolgen?

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring