Short Reads

Highest German Court rules that ASICS's ban on using price comparison websites violates EU competition law

Highest German Court rules that ASICS's ban on using price comparison

Highest German Court rules that ASICS's ban on using price comparison websites violates EU competition law

01.02.2018 NL law

On 19 January 2018, the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) published its judgment concerning an appeal brought by shoe manufacturer ASICS against a fining decision. The FCJ ruled that ASICS had infringed competition law by prohibiting its retailers from participating in price comparison websites. The judgment confirms the strict approach of German courts relating to vertical online sales restrictions.

 

In August 2015, the German competition authority fined ASICS for restricting internet sales by authorised distributors in its selective distribution system [see our February 2016 Newsletter]. Among other things, the authority objected to a clause which prohibited authorised distributors from participating in price-comparison websites. After ASICS had unsuccessfully appealed the fining decision before the District Court of Düsseldorf, the case was brought before the FCJ.

The FCJ first sets out that price-comparison websites are an important tool for consumers to help them make a choice given the large variety of products, suppliers and prices found on the internet. At the same time, price comparison websites are often used by small retailers to attract customers via low-priced offers. Against this background, the FCJ ruled that ASICS's absolute ban on participating in price-comparison websites (e.g. irrespective of the quality of the price comparison tool) constituted a restriction of competition which could not be exempted under the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation.

Interestingly enough, the FCJ spent some time distinguishing the facts in ASICS from the facts in the European Court of Justice's Coty-judgment. In the Coty-judgment, the Court of Justice ruled that suppliers of luxury goods may prohibit their authorised distributors from selling on third party internet platforms such as eBay [see our December 2017 Newsletter]. The FCJ, however, ruled that this reasoning could not be applied to ASICS's selective distribution system as ASICS' shoes are not luxury goods and ASICS, unlike Coty, used a combination of contractual clauses to restrict the online sales of its distributors (e.g. that distributors are not allowed to use ASICS's brand name in online advertisements). Accordingly, the FCJ dismisses ASICS's appeal. 

The FCJ's judgment shows that restrictions on the use of price comparison tools are not necessarily treated equally to online platform bans under EU competition rules. This is in line with the European Commission's view, which stated in its e-commerce sector inquiry report that: '[M]arketplaces and price comparison tools differ in a number of respects' and that in a selective distribution system 'absolute price comparison tool bans which are not linked to quality criteria, potentially restrict the effective use of the internet as a sales channel and may amount to a hardcore restriction'. 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of January 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Dissemination of misleading information on the safety of a medical product can be a "by object" infringement
  2. Qualifying dawn raid documents as 'in scope' or 'out of scope': marginal review by Belgian Court

Team

Related news

27.09.2019 NL law
Stibbe is attending the IBA's annual conference in Seoul

Conference - The annual conference of the International Bar Association (IBA) is currently taking place in Seoul. There are fourteen partners from Stibbe attending the event. Several of them have speaking slots on a wide range of legal topics and will take part in various panel discussions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring