umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Short Reads

European Commission publishes report on effectiveness of enforcement in online hotel booking sector

European Commission publishes report on effectiveness of enforcement

European Commission publishes report on effectiveness of enforcement in online hotel booking sector

01.05.2017 EU law

On 6 April 2017, the European Commission published the results of a monitoring exercise conducted in the online hotel booking sector together with ten other national competition authorities (NCAs). The exercise was aimed at measuring the effects of changes made to the "price parity clauses" that online travel agents (OTAs) included in contracts with hotels following interventions by NCAs.

Price parity clauses – otherwise known as "most favoured nation" (MFN) 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 to any other buyer. In the online booking sector, OTAs typically adopted "wide" MFN clauses, forcing hotels to offer an OTA the lowest room prices and best room availability compared to all other sales channels, including other OTAs, offline channels, and the hotels' own websites. In practice, this would result in the same prices offered on all OTAs. Various NCAs claimed that MFN clauses reduced competition between OTAs and could foreclose new entrants [see our October 2013 Newsletter].

The 'monitoring exercise' was commissioned to assess the impact of the different approaches taken by NCAs to address the competition concerns caused by MFN clauses. While the German and French NCAs decided to impose an outright ban on MFN clauses, others forced OTAs to adopt so-called "narrow" MFN clauses. Narrow MFN clauses allow hotels to offer lower rates to other OTAs and offline travel agents, but prohibit them from offering lower prices on their own websites.

Overall, the results show that the enforcement measures resulted in increased room price and room availability differentiation on OTAs in the last couple of years. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence that antitrust enforcement resulted in lower commission rates charged by OTAs. Based on the current results of the survey, it is unclear whether the outright ban on MFN clauses in Germany and France led to better results than the switch to narrow MFN clauses in the other countries. The results also show that a large number of hotels were simply unaware that OTAs had made any changes in their contracts, making it difficult to properly monitor the effects of the changes.

This 'exercise' is yet another example of European competition authorities' increased focus on e-commerce markets [see Asics below]. It also shows that NCAs are willing to explore diverging approaches to address competition concerns in "new" or previously untested markets, while understanding that post-enforcement monitoring may pave the road to a common approach. Based on the results, the Commission and the NCAs have agreed to keep the online hotel booking sector under review, but that new enforcement actions in the online hotel booking sector will be closely coordinated.

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

  1. Court of Justice allows use of evidence received from national tax authorities
  2. Court of Justice clarifies parental liability rules in the context of prescription
  3. Dusseldorf Court confirms that Asics' online sales restrictions violate competition law
  4. Hague Court of Appeal rules on interpretation of object infringements
  5. Commercial Court of Ghent grants compensation to parallel importers for competition law infringement by Honda

Team

Related news

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more