The Digital Markets Act (DMA) is a landmark piece of legislation granting unprecedented powers to the European Commission to regulate large digital platforms. The DMA targets platforms that operate as gatekeepers between businesses and users, hold an “entrenched and durable position,” and operate one or more core platform services (CPSs).
Cleary Gottlieb partner Nicholas Levy and associates Anita Magraner Oliver and Conor Opdebeeck-Wilson co-authored the “European Union” chapter in The
On 4 September, the Department for Business and Trade launched a consultation on proposals designed to improve the quality and accessibility of information for consumers making purchases. The background to the consultation is: (i) the government’s review of the Price Marking Order 2004 (PMO), which implemented the EU Price Indications Directive and therefore now can be amended following Brexit, (ii) the CMA’s report on grocery unit pricing,[1] (iii) Government research into drip pricing and hidden fees,[2] and (iv) the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers (DMCC) Bill, currently going through the legislative process in Parliament.
On July 27, 2023[1], the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf ruled on the question of whether a company that has been fined under antitrust law can hold itself harmless by seeking indemnification from the statutory representatives in its managing corporate body. While the Higher Regional Court rejected a claim for reimbursement of the fine imposed on the company by the German Federal Cartel Office and the costs of the fine proceedings, it confirmed the personal liability of the company’s statutory representatives in its managing corporate body for any consequential damages arising from the antitrust infringement, e.g., as a result of claims for damages by third parties.
On August 17, 2023, the European Commission (EC) decided to review Qualcomm’s acquisition of the Israeli-based semiconductor company Autotalks, even though the deal was not reportable at EU or Member State level. Just one day later, on August 18, 2023, the EC also accepted jurisdiction over another non-reportable deal – European Energy Exchange’s (EEX) acquisition of Nasdaq’s European power trading and clearing business (Nasdaq Power).
On 9 August 2023, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published a joint position paper on online choice architecture (OCA), titled “Harmful design in digital markets: How Online Choice Architecture practices can undermine consumer choice and control over personal information”. The paper forms part of the agencies’ work under the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum, which brings together multiple UK regulatory bodies to advance their combined thinking on regulatory issues in the digital economy.
On 12 July, 2023, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published a Feedback Statement summarising responses to its October 2022 Discussion Paper entitled “The potential competition impacts of Big Tech entry and expansion in retail financial services.”[1]
Over the past two decades, litigation funding in the UK has become increasingly important and more commonly used. Once deemed
On 31 July 2023, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) issued an infringement decision finding that Leicester City Football Club and JD Sports had colluded to restrict competition in the sales of Leicester City-branded clothing, including replica kit, in the UK. Leicester City FC and its parent companies reached a settlement agreement with the CMA, under which they will pay a fine of £880,000. JD Sports had reported the infringement to the CMA, in exchange for immunity from financial penalties.
On June 29, 2023, the Court of Justice ruled on questions referred by the Lisbon Court of Appeals relating to alleged resale price maintenance (“RPM”) by Super Bock, a Portuguese beverage manufacturer.[1] The Court of Justice held, inter alia, that a vertical agreement fixing minimum prices is not necessarily a restriction of competition by object despite its characterization as a “hardcore restriction” under the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (“VBER”)[2] and, in certain circumstances, the existence of an agreement may be inferred from “explicit or tacit acquiescence” by the distributors to an invitation to comply with minimum resale prices.[3]