umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Short Reads

Digitisation and competition law: past, present and future

Digitisation and competition law: past, present and future

Digitisation and competition law: past, present and future

07.02.2019 EU law

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.

When looking at past practice [see our overview of 2018 key developments], companies should brace themselves for potentially more regulation and 'modernised' enforcement by authorities looking beyond the traditional competition rules to fix the potential anti-competitive risks of digitisation.

Even though no definite stance has been taken yet and more will be revealed in the upcoming publication of the expert panel's report, the Commission is likely to also look at past practice to decide on the future of competition law in the era of digitisation.

In the past [see our overview of 2018 key developments with summaries and take-aways], the Commission resolved potential 'gaps' in competition law enforcement by introducing complementary regulatory measures, such as the Geo-blocking Regulation and the upcoming P2B Regulation. These type of complementary measures may also be used in the future. As a result, the lines between competition law and other interests, such as consumer protection, data protection, innovation safeguards and the protection of fairness, may become increasingly blurred. This is, however, not an entirely new phenomenon when looking at, for instance, the growing awareness among various competition authorities that competition rules and consumer protection issues are sometimes so intertwined that they need to be assessed jointly within the context of fairness. Consumer inertia or vulnerability may lead to unfair results, even in competitive markets, which may potentially require complementary measures, outside competition law, to reach a fairer outcome.

Another likely adjustment that follows from the past relates to the EU merger regulation. Additional rules to take account of 'killer acquisitions', acquisitions by dominant companies of innovative start-ups which negatively affect innovation, could be introduced. Suggestions to address these kind of acquisitions include the introduction of a value-based notification threshold, an increased focus on innovation during the substantive merger assessment or a shift in the burden of proof for super-dominant firms to convince the Commission that the acquisition will be pro-competitive. A further item that is likely to appear on the Commission's action list is how to deal with the increasing power of platforms. Possibilities currently being considered comprise the adjustment of the essential facilities-doctrine in relation to data access, the introduction of mandatory data-sharing rules or the breaking-up of dominant companies into separate business units. The Commission is also looking into ways to speed up its enforcement actions in the dynamic digital world, for instance by using 'interim measures' in anticipation of the outcome of, what can often be, lengthy investigations. In addition, the Commission is bound to use the evaluation of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation to provide further clarification on recurring digital issues, such as online sale or online search advertising restrictions and market place bans. A public consultation was launched on 4 February 2019 and interested parties have until 27 May 2019 to provide their input.

What the future will bring is anyone's guess but by looking at what has happened in the past, the Commission's future approach towards digitisation in competition policy is likely to involve speedier enforcement outcomes through complementary regulatory measures and adjusted rules in merger control, online vertical restrictions and in relation to platform power. The rest of the Commission's plans are to be revealed later this year.

 

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

Team

Related news

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more