Short Reads

Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal rules on cover pricing

Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal rules on cover pricing

Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal rules on cover pricing

01.11.2017 NL law

On 12 October 2017, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) ruled on appeal on the practice of "cover pricing" in a tender context. The practice was found to constitute a restriction of competition by object.

In this case, sensitive bidding information was sent from one bidder to the other, in order to enable the latter firm to submit an offer that would be considered as serious by the organizing entity, but that at the same time would be less attractive than the bid of the former firm. This approach is often referred to as cover pricing. By submitting a serious but non-winning bid rather than no bid at all, a firm hopes to increase the probability that it will be invited for any future tenders organized by the same entity.

The parties argued on appeal that cover pricing did not actually influence the competitive process as, in essence, the counterfactual world would not have entailed another competitive bid either. However, according to the CBb, cover pricing reduces the strategic risk for both the interested as well as the non-interested bidder (i.e. the bidder submitting the cover price) and results in an distorted image of the market for the procurer. Especially when the number of bidders is small, cover pricing might also cause an increase in prices, as the firm enabling another bidder to submit a cover price knows that not latter does not truly compete for the project. The CBb therefore found that cover pricing should be qualified as a conduct that by its object distorts competition.

At the same time, the CBb decided that cover pricing is a less serious infringement than bid rigging. Therefore, the CBb decided to reduce fines in this case.

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

  1. General Court annuls UPC/Ziggo merger decision
  2. General Court rules that luxury watchmakers can limit supply of parts to approved repairers
  3. General Court upholds fine for 'gun jumping' EU merger control procedure
  4. European Commission orders the recovery of State aid of around EUR 250 million from Amazon
  5. Nike can restrict sales via online platforms within its selective distribution system
  6. KLM and Amsterdam Schiphol airport offer commitments to reduce competition concerns

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