Short Reads

Big tech firms entering banking: be careful what you wish for

Big tech firms entering banking: be careful what you wish for

Big tech firms entering banking: be careful what you wish for

05.12.2019 NL law

Big tech firms, whether entering or already active on payments markets, are under scrutiny. PSD2 has opened up the payments markets to non-bank companies, but this comes with both risks and opportunities. EU regulators are examining anticompetitive risks, for example the possibility of leveraging a strong position in one market into another market. Competition, innovation, privacy and security for financial transactions will all be hot topics as scrutiny increases on providers of payment services.

The message remains as vital as ever: antitrust rules should be kept in mind when engaging in any of these services. Firms are advised to keep an eye on this developing field – no doubt interesting times lie ahead.

The revised directive on payment services (PSD2), which entered into force in early 2019, allows non-bank companies to offer their innovative services on the payments markets. Alongside small fintech companies, various big tech firms are now active – or planning to be active – on these markets, where EU regulators will be watching their every move.

The European Commission (Commission) is keeping an eye on possible anti-competitive market practices and abusive conduct on payments markets by actively monitoring the development of mobile payment solutions and the behaviour of operators active in the payments sector. One such concern, for example, is whether Apple may favour its own service (Apple Pay) over other payment methods. Requests for information were sent to banks, online payment providers and app developers, requesting input on Apple Pay. The Commission is also examining Facebook’s plans to launch its new cryptocurrency ‘Libra’. Even before its actual market entry, the Commission is looking into how Libra-backed products and services will be integrated into Facebook’s platforms; an investigation encompassing not only questions related to competition, but also concerning innovation, privacy and security for financial transactions. In such an interconnected field, increased coordination between regulators only seems a matter of time. 

Meanwhile, the Dutch Authority for Consumers & Markets (ACM) has launched a market study into the activities of major tech firms on the Dutch payments market. According to the ACM, big techs could leverage their strong positions on one market into another market, to prevent other (smaller) providers from entering payments markets. Similarly, the French competition authority has issued a market study into the entry of “digital giants”, with Bitcoin and Libra as particular points of interest.

It is clear that payments markets come with both risks and opportunities for big tech firms. Such firms are advised to seize the opportunities presented to them, but ensure they fully adhere to antitrust rules when entering the payments markets. Undoubtedly, there will be more to come on this rapidly-evolving area, so watch this space for any future developments.

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of December 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:

 

Team

Related news

07.02.2020 BE law
Het finale Belgische ‘nationaal energie- en klimaatplan’ en de Belgische langetermijnstrategie: het geduld van de Commissie op de proef gesteld?

Articles - Op 31 december 2019 diende België, nog net op tijd, zijn definitieve nationaal energie- en klimaatplan (NEKP) in bij de Commissie. Het staat nu al vast dat het Belgische NEKP niet op applaus zal worden onthaald door de Commissie. Verder laat ook de Belgische langetermijnstrategie op zich wachten. Wat zijn de gevolgen?

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring