Short Reads

Court of Justice: Suppliers of luxury goods may prohibit their authorised distributors from selling on third party internet platforms

Court of Justice: Suppliers of luxury goods may prohibit their author

Court of Justice: Suppliers of luxury goods may prohibit their authorised distributors from selling on third party internet platforms

02.01.2018 NL law

On 6 December 2017, the Court of Justice rendered its much anticipated judgment in a dispute between a supplier of luxury cosmetics (Coty) and one of its authorised resellers. The central question was whether Coty is allowed under the competition rules to forbid its resellers to sell Coty products over third party internet platforms with visible logos (like eBay or Amazon).

The Court of Justice ruled that such an “online platform ban” is not incompatible with EU competition law. The Court ruled that online platforms bans can be appropriate in the context of a selective distribution system provided such bans do not go beyond what is necessary to preserve the luxury image of products.

Judgment

This ruling will be welcomed by luxury brand owners. The Court of Justice confirms that suppliers have considerable freedom under EU competition rules to design their (selective) distribution networks as they see fit. The Court's judgment largely follows previous case law indicating that selective distribution systems, which are mainly intended to preserve the ‘luxury image’ of products are not necessarily caught by the cartel prohibition. This is the case where such selective distribution systems meet two criteria: (1) the resellers are chosen on the basis of objective criteria of a qualitative nature which are determined and applied uniformly and (2) the criteria established do not go beyond what is necessary for the preservation of the special character of the products supplied within the selective distribution system (e.g. their luxury image).

In its judgment, the Court of Justice ruled that online platform bans in such selective distribution networks can be an appropriate and necessary means to preserve the luxury image of products sold. Such bans allow brand owners to ensure that the goods are sold in an online environment that corresponds to the brand owner’s qualitative standards. Consequently, an online platform ban within a selective distribution network, in principle, does not restrict competition. By contrast, the Court reiterates that an absolute online sales ban imposed on retailers (which for example also prohibits retailers from selling via their own online shops) will not be legal unless objectively justified [see the Court of Justice judgment in Pierre Fabre].

Implications

The Coty-judgment ends a period of uncertainty over the legality of online platform bans under EU law, which has been the subject of divergent interpretations by the national competition authorities and courts. In Germany, the national competition authority had ruled that online platform bans tend to restrict competition [see our February 2016 Newsletter]. Conversely, a Dutch court had recently ruled that a brand owner was allowed to impose an online platform ban on its authorised distributors [see our November 2017 Newsletter]. Following the ruling of the Court of Justice, a remaining point of uncertainty arguably lies in what may qualify as a ‘luxurious’ good.

In any event, the ruling in Coty should make it easier for luxury brand owners to create pan-European selective distribution systems, without worrying too much about divergent interpretations of the competition rules by national courts and authorities in different EU Member States. Online platforms like eBay or Amazon, however, will not be pleased with the outcome of this case. They may see more brand owners prohibiting their authorised retailers to sell via third party online platforms.

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

1. Court of The Hague confirms that the ACM can copy mobile phones during an inspection
2. Court of Justice dismisses appeal by Telefónica on non-compete clause in telecoms transaction

Team

Related news

18.02.2019 BE law
Plan-MER voor Vlaams windturbinekader? Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen te rade bij Europa

Articles - Het wordt stilaan een traditie van de Belgische rechter om het Hof van Justitie te bevragen over de milieueffectenbeoordeling en -rapportage (MER). Na de Raad van State en het Grondwettelijk Hof is het de beurt aan de Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen. In een tussenarrest van 4 december 2018 heeft de Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen aan het Hof van Justitie een lijst met prejudiciële vragen gesteld over de plan-MER-plicht van het Vlaamse kader voor de uitbating van windturbines. Mogen we ons verwachten aan een juridische saga "d'Oultremont pt.II"?

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
Follow-on cartel damages claim dismissed: don't bury courts under paper work

Short Reads - A recent ruling by the Dutch Court of Appeal confirmed that claimants will need to sufficiently substantiate their claim that they suffered loss due to a cartel, even in follow-on cases. Despite a presumption that sales or service contracts concluded during the cartel period have been affected by the cartel, claimants will still need to provide the courts with concrete, detailed and uncluttered information showing (i) which party purchased (ii) which products from (iii) which manufacturer for (iv) which amount, preferably with copies of the relevant agreements.

Read more

18.02.2019 NL law
Brexit and data protection: preparing for a 'no-deal'

Short Reads - As it stands, the UK will exit the European Union at midnight on 29 March 2019. Therefore, businesses within the UK, or with trade relations with the UK, would be best advised to assume that a no-deal Brexit is inevitable. The exchange of personal data  within the EU is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In a no-deal Brexit, the GDPR will cease to be applicable in the UK upon its EU exit.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
The need for speed in mergers is no reason to ignore rights of defence

Short Reads - On 16 January 2019, the European Court of Justice clarified the procedural guarantees the European Commission needs to provide to merging parties during merger reviews. According to the Court of Justice, the General Court (GC) had rightly annulled the Commission's decision to prohibit the merger of UPS and TNT. UPS's right of defence had been infringed because the Commission had failed to share the final version of the econometric model with UPS before adopting its prohibition decision.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
The ACM follows EU approach in its first pharmaceutical merger

Short Reads - The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) recently reviewed its first merger between two pharmaceutical companies. In its conditional clearance of Aurobindo's acquisition of certain European Apotex assets, the ACM followed the European Commission's approach in assessing the merger's impact on competition. Companies will welcome the news that pharma mergers will be reviewed in a similar fashion, irrespective of whether the ACM or the European Commission conducts the review.

Read more

07.02.2019 EU law
Digitisation and competition law: past, present and future

Short Reads - It is nearly time for the European Commission to reveal its course of action in digitisation and competition law. Feedback from a public consultation and the recent conference on 'Shaping competition policy in the era of digitisation' together with the upcoming expert panel's report on the future challenges of digitisation for competition policy are likely to shape the Commission's course of action.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring