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

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring