Short Reads

District Court of Rotterdam dismisses Vodafone claims of abuse of dominance by KPN

District Court of Rotterdam dismisses Vodafone claims of abuse of dom

District Court of Rotterdam dismisses Vodafone claims of abuse of dominance by KPN

02.10.2017 NL law

On 27 September 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam dismissed claims by Vodafone that KPN abused its dominant position on the market for Virtual Internet Service Provider (VISP) services. In essence, the Court found that KPN did not have a dominant position on this hypothetical market because several companies had developed alternatives to KPN's services.

In 2007, KPN (through its subsidiary Tiscali) started to provide VISP services to Vodafone. These services allowed Vodafone to develop and offer retail internet, television and telephone ("Triple Play") services. In 2009, KPN announced its intention to terminate the VISP services agreement. After Vodafone objected to the termination, the two companies concluded a new agreement in 2011.

According to Vodafone, KPN abused its dominant position by terminating the original agreement and subsequently failing to comply with its obligations under the new VISP services agreement. This resulted in the delay of Vodafone's planned launch of television services through KPN's copper network until the end of 2014. According to Vodafone, this allowed KPN to continue to strengthen its own position on the retail market without having to face competition from Vodafone.

The District Court concluded that KPN did not have a dominant position on the hypothetical market for VISP services. In that regard it considered that KPN was unable to act independently of its competitors, because companies such as Tele2, BBned and Online were capable of developing their own television platforms, either using services provided by competitors of KPN such as Samsung, or by developing such a platform themselves. Vodafone had also argued that KPN's services were the only suitable option available. However, the Court considered that KPN's attractiveness as a service provider in this case was the result of Vodafone's own strategic choices and not because there was a lack of alternatives.

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

  1. Court of Justice landmark judgment: Intel's EUR 1.06 billion fine is sent back to the General Court
  2. Court of Justice upholds fine imposed on Philips and LG in the cathode ray tubes cartel
  3. Court of Justice clarifies that a change from sole to joint control requires EU clearance only if the joint venture is "full-function"
  4. Court of Justice provides guidance on examining excessive prices as abuse of a dominant position
  5. Curaçao Competition Act entered into force on 1 September 2017

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