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

21.02.2020 NL law
Podcast: Data en financiële instellingen

Short Reads - In deze podcast praten Roderik Vrolijk en Frederiek Fernhout van Stibbe in Amsterdam en Joran Iedema van Stibbe StartsUP-deelnemer Dyme over Fintech, PSD2 en het gebruik van data door financiële instellingen. Aan de ene kant biedt nieuwe regelgeving zoals PSD2 nieuwe mogelijkheden, aan de andere kant neemt de regeldruk en het toezicht op bescherming van persoonsgegevens toe.

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

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
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
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

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