Short Reads

Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merg

Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

04.06.2020 NL law

There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets.

The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets.

The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

The combined entity operates a Mobility as a Service (MaaS) platform, integrating various shared methods of transport across different providers and allows users to plan, book, and pay for journeys in a single app. The ACM’s clearance was subject to the condition that the combined entity offers NS’ services to rivals, under equal terms.

Future ex-ante tools may alter this, but for now, merging companies need to anticipate wide-ranging remedies at an early stage in transactions in this field, to avoid protracted and time-consuming merger reviews.

The merger combines the MaaS services of NS and Pon. These services integrate various shared modes of transport (such as shared cars and bikes) provided by NS and Pon, and third party operators. Both apps had a small market footprint before the merger, and did not integrate NS’ own mobility services (i.e. train and bike-sharing).

The ACM was concerned that the deal could negatively affect competition in the markets for bike-sharing and public transport, in particular in light of NS’ position on the rail market and its offer of shared bikes (OV-fiets). The fact that neither service had been integrated into NS’ own app, which instead had chosen to offer the services of rival bike-sharing apps, did not alter the ACM’s conclusion that NS and Pon could have a future incentive to foreclose rival platforms by refusing access to its services, or to offer access on less favourable terms.

To mitigate these concerns, the ACM accepted behavioural remedies ensuring that if and when NS’ services were to be offered to the combined platform, rival apps could also request access on equal terms.

The case illustrates competition authorities’ careful approach in digital platform markets and related activities. What is notable in the present decision is the fact that the combined platform would not hold a significant market position in the downstream market. Requiring a far-reaching behavioural remedy in these circumstances suggests that competition authorities are increasingly using merger control to prevent platforms from achieving market positions that may prove difficult to remedy later through traditional antitrust enforcement tools. Competition authorities’ difficulties in addressing the perceived dominance of tech companies may have led to an increasingly cautious and pre-emptive approach.

This may soon change. Parallel to consulting on platform-specific ex ante regulation, the Commission is seeking views on a new competition tool to tackle (i) structural risks for competition through the emergence of powerful market players (gatekeepers) or (ii) structural market failure. The Commission’s legislative proposal is scheduled for the end of this year.

However, pending more extensive ex-ante instruments or regulations of digital markets, the cautious approach is likely to continue. This means that merging parties with activities in these markets must assess their market position carefully, and anticipate antitrust issues in market circumstances that previously may not have given rise to concerns. This may also make it necessary to offer far-reaching remedies at an early stage, in order to avoid protracted and lengthy merger control reviews.

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of June 2020. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

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

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