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

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

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

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

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