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

Regulate tech giants and create European champions, says Dutch government

Regulate tech giants and create European champions, says Dutch govern

Regulate tech giants and create European champions, says Dutch government

06.06.2019 NL law

Companies beware: revised EU competition rules are on their way. After the Franco-German Manifesto calling for more political intervention in competition rules to better deal with intensified global competitive forces, the Dutch government is now pleading for politically independent enforcement of stricter EU competition rules.

Stronger, modernised competition rules will not only allow European champions to grow, they can also keep powerful global digital platforms in check. On the Dutch government's wish list are ex ante supervision, forced data sharing, transaction value-based merger thresholds and more guidance on online markets specificities. Even though the new European Commission will have the final say, companies should nonetheless prepare for a strengthened EU competition policy.

The Dutch government agrees with Franco-German suggestions to: (i) defend multilateralism and open markets, (ii) promote an ambitious EU trade policy, and (iii) improve the global level playing field. However, it also questions whether introducing a veto to politically 'unblock' blocked European Commission merger decisions is necessary for the cultivation of European champions capable of competing on the world stage. Instead, champions should be created through strong and politically independent enforcement of strict competition rules, within a strengthened single market. These stricter competition rules are particularly needed to deal with the challenges of the digital economy.

For this reason, the Dutch State Secretary for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy suggests the following additional tools for EU competition policy to keep up with online developments:

  • intervention by way of ex ante measures, forcing large platforms with gatekeeper roles to, (for instance) share data or stop favouring certain search results, even before abuse occurs
  • fill the online market gaps in the current guidelines, such as how to define multi-sided markets, how to assess the role of data in competition analyses, and how to deal with abuse of dominance based on data or privacy instead of price;
  • introduce a transaction value-based merger review threshold to enable competition authorities to review 'killer acquisitions': acquisitions by dominant firms of relatively small, innovative start-ups in order to avoid them growing into important rivals.

The Dutch government acknowledges it needs the support of the European Commission and the other Member States to realise these ambitions. Even though its appeal for support is unlikely to fall on deaf ears - the European Commission's special adviser's report has also suggested considerable changes [see our May 2019 Newsletter] -  it could still be some time before a revised EU competition policy materialises. The new European Commission will first need to take a stance on the future of the EU competition rules. Companies should thus prepare for a revised EU competition policy, but they should not hold their breath for any imminent changes.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of June 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