Short Reads

UK Court upholds fine against Ping for online sales ban

UK Court upholds fine against Ping for online sales ban

UK Court upholds fine against Ping for online sales ban

01.10.2018 EU law

On 7 September 2018, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) upheld the UK Competition and Market Authority's (CMA) decision fining Ping Europe Limited, a manufacturer of golf clubs, for violating EU and UK competition law by prohibiting two UK retailers from selling Ping golf clubs online. While the CAT reduced the fine from £1.45 million to £1.25 million, it confirmed that outright online sales bans in the context of selective distribution agreements are restrictive of competition by object.

Ping is the latest in a series of decisions seeking to define the scope of appropriate restrictions in the context of online sales. The general principle was established by the European Court of Justice in Pierre Fabre that a ban on sales via distributors' websites is restrictive of competition by object unless it is objectively justified. Subsequently, national authorities in Germany [see our February 2016 Newsletter] and the Netherlands [see our October 2017 Newsletter] reached divergent decisions concerning the legality of sales bans on online platforms such as Amazon and eBay. In Coty, the Court of Justice clarified that online platform 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 [see our January 2018 Newsletter].

The CAT found that Ping's internet policy failed to satisfy the criteria established in case law for valid selective distribution networks (i.e. resellers must be chosen on the basis of objective and qualitative criteria, the characteristics of the product in question must require such a network in order to preserve quality and proper use and the criteria laid down must not go beyond what is necessary). 

Although the CAT accepted that the aim of Ping's internet policy was to promote in-person custom club fittings, it concluded that the online sales ban went further than was necessary because Ping (i) allowed account holders to sell off-the-shelf clubs in stores and by telephone without a prior custom fitting, (ii) did not impose a similar online sales ban in the United States and (iii) failed to take account of the fact that some customers do not require a custom fitting (e.g. those who already know their specifications). The CAT also noted that Ping's custom fitting process did not appear to be materially different from that of other manufacturers who all permitted online sales.

While online sales bans on distributors' websites remain a high risk area, the CMA's submissions in Ping shed light on terms that may be imposed on distributors in the context of online sales without running afoul of competition rules. Rather than a sales ban, Ping could have imposed contractual requirements on distributors to promote custom fitting services online by (i) displaying a prominent advisory notice strongly recommending that consumers take advantage of the custom fitting service, (ii) providing drop-down boxes with a range of relevant Ping custom fit options, (iii) having online interactive features which facilitate the provision of individual advice (e.g. through ‘live-chat’ technology) or (iv) having a mandatory tick-box for consumers to confirm that they understand the importance of custom fitting.

Ping offers an important reminder that safeguarding competition online will remain an important enforcement priority for competition authorities and exceptions will continue to be construed narrowly by courts.

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

1. Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart card chips cartel back to the General Court
2. EFTA Court offers guidance for assessing national limitation periods for follow-on damages claims
3. Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal annuls mail market analysis decision

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