On December 18, 2025, the Court of Justice delivered a preliminary ruling in connection with an appeal by OSA, a Czech collective management organization handling copyright and collecting royalties (“CMO”), against an Article 102 TFEU infringement decision of the Czech Competition Authority.[1]
The OSA judgment clarifies the application of Article 102 TFEU(a) regarding the calculation of copyright royalties in the hospitality sector, specifically whether charging royalties for making televisions and radios available in unoccupied hotel rooms constitutes an abuse of dominance. The Court did not follow the opinion of the Advocate General[2] and found that a CMO’s refusal to reflect actual occupancy – and therefore economic reality – in its pricing may be abusive, provided that adjusting for occupancy is feasible.
Background
OSA was found to hold a dominant position on the collective management of copyright in the Czech Republic.[3] OSA charged hotels fixed royalty fees based on the total number of rooms equipped with television or radio sets, regardless of whether the rooms were actually occupied.[4]
The Czech Competition Authority found, in a 2019 decision (“the decision”), that hotels were forced by OSA to pay for a service that was not used in vacant rooms between 2008 and 2014 without any objective justification. This amounted to unfair trading conditions on the national market for the granting of licenses for the use of copyrighted works and therefore an abuse of a dominant position.[5] OSA was ordered to pay a €429,000 fine and to cease and desist from the conduct.
Following OSA’s appeal,[6] the Czech court referred questions to the Court of Justice.[7]
The Court of Justice’s judgment
The Court of Justice found that OSA’s pricing should be assessed under the excessive pricing doctrine, which involves a determination whether the price charged is excessive in relation to the economic value of the service provided.[8] It further found that the number of people who actually benefit from the TV and radio offering is relevant to the economic value of the service provided by hotels.[9] Consequently, CMOs must take account of occupancy rates (including seasonal reductions, renovations, or health crises), or at least of “an estimation of the number of works protected by copyright actually used” to avoid prices being found excessive in breach of Article 102 TFEU.[10] To ease the associated administrative burden, the Court of Justice noted that its finding is subject to two caveats: (i) a method for calculating fees based on occupancy can be implemented at reasonable cost, and (ii) this method results in a significant reduction in the total fees compared to a flat-rate model.[11] The Court insisted in particular on the fact that the national court has to make its assessment in light of the “availability and reliability of the data” and the “technological tools in existence” for CMOs.[12]
Key takeaways and implications
Following the ruling, we expect that CMOs across the EU will need to assess their pricing to ensure alignment with the Judgment.
[1] OSA (Case C-161/24) EU:C:2025:985 (“OSA judgment”), available here.
[2] OSA (Case C-161/24) EU:C:2025:417 (“Advocate General Opinion”), available here.
[3] OSA judgement, paras 12 and 27.
[4] OSA judgement, para. 8.
[5] OSA judgement, para. 9.
[6] OSA judgement, paras 11-13.
[7] OSA judgement, para. 21.
[8] OSA judgement, paras 28-29.
[9] OSA judgement, paras 30-31.
[10] OSA judgement, paras 33-34.
[11] OSA judgement, paras 35-36 and 40.
[12] OSA judgement, para. 35.