In the latest instalment of Cleary Gottlieb’s Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by Martijn Snoep, Chair of
The Paris Court of Appeals states that granting a stay of execution involves analyzing only the “manifestly excessive consequences” of a sanction imposed, and not its merits in Bisphenol A case
In a decision dated July 24, 2024,[1] the Paris Court of Appeals granted a stay of execution in relation to a €2,700,000 fine imposed on the Association Nationale des Industries Alimentaires (“ANIA”) by the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) in the Bisphenol A case only considering the manifestly excessive consequences of such sanction in view of ANIA’s financial situation and without examining its merits.
Antitrust Review Episode 27: In Conversation With Sir John Vickers
In our latest installment, host Nick Levy is joined by Sir John Vickers, Warden of Oxford University’s All Souls College
Digital Markets, Competition, and Consumers Act: A Game-Changer for UK Consumer Protection
The Digital Markets, Competition, and Consumers (DMCC) Act, which passed on 23 May 2024, will introduce significant reforms to UK competition and consumer protection law and digital regulation (see our update summarising the main changes). In this post, we’ll take a closer look at the Act’s overhaul of the UK consumer protection regime.
FCO Continues Rare but Strict Enforcement of Resale Price Maintenance Prohibition
On June 10, 2024, the German Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”) imposed fines of almost €16 million on AVM Computersysteme Vertriebs GmbH (“AVM”) and one of its staff representatives for vertical price fixing (so-called Resale Price Maintenance or “RPM”) with six electronics retailers.[1]
UK Digital Markets, Competition, and Consumers Bill Passed By Parliament
UK Becomes Fourth Jurisdiction to Introduce Dedicated Digital Platform Regulation, with More Jurisdictions Likely to Follow
On 23 May, the UK Parliament passed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers (DMCC) Bill. The new DMCC Act will bring about some of the most significant reforms to competition and consumer protection law in the UK in decades. Among other major reforms, it introduces a dedicated regime that provides for specific conduct rules for large digital platforms. The UK therefore becomes the fourth jurisdiction—after the EU with its Digital Market Act (DMA), Germany with its s.19A rules, and Japan with its new smartphone bill (also passed on 23 May)—to introduce rules that target a handful of the largest digital firms.[1]
Mondelēz Fined €337.5 Million For Breaching EU Antitrust Rules Through Cross-Border Restrictions
U.S. based snacks company, Mondelēz, has been found to have engaged in 22 anti-competitive agreements or concerted practices by the Commission. The Commission also found that Mondelēz abused its dominant position in the market for the sale of certain types of chocolate bars in several countries. After a three-year investigation during which Mondelez followed the cooperation process, they have agreed to settle the investigation, with the Commission announcing a €337.5 million fine for hindering cross-border trade of chocolates, biscuits, and coffee products between Member States, in violation of EU competition rules.
The French Competition Authority fines 11 companies involved in four infringements revealed by criminal searches in the pre-cast concrete sector
On May 21, 2024, the French Competition Authority (the “FCA”) fined 11 companies active in the pre-cast concrete sector for having exchanged commercially sensitive information and implemented anticompetitive price fixing, customer allocation and bid rigging practices over seven to ten years (from 2008 or 2011 to 2017 or 2018 depending on the practices).[1] These practices were uncovered in the context of a criminal investigation carried out under the supervision of a criminal investigating judge (juge d’instruction). Fines ranged from €150,000 to €25.5 million, amounting to a total of approx. €76.6 million.
The Court of Justice Clarifies National Limitations Periods and Upholds Parties’ Right To Compensation In Follow-on Damages Actions
On April 18, 2024, the Court of Justice delivered its judgement on the questions referred to it by the Prague Municipal Court in the Heureka v. Google case.[1] Heureka Group (“Heureka”), a Czech comparison shopping service company (“CSS”) brought an action before the Municipal Court of Prague in the Czech Republic, seeking compensation from Google for the harm it allegedly suffered as a result of Google’s abusive behavior as part of the Google Shopping decision. The referring court sought clarification about whether Article 10 of Directive 2014/104 (the “Damages Directive”) [2] and/or Article 102 TFEU[3] preclude the effects of a national law that requires parties seeking compensation for competition infringements to file suit within three years of the occurrence of the harm. The Court of Justice ruled that Article 102 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness require the suspension of limitation periods during the Commission’s investigation. The limitation period will only start running when the injured party knows the information necessary to bring its claim, which is presumed to be as of the date of the publication of the summary of the Commission’s infringement decision in the Official Journal of the EU. Additionally, the injured party, Heureka in this instance, can then rely on the findings of a Commission decision under appeal, as it is binding in nature, unless and until it has been annulled.
Enrico Letta’s Report – The Future Of The Single Market
On April 17, 2024, the former Italian Prime Minister, Enrico Letta, published a report outlining the future of the EU’s single market (the “Report”).[1] Letta proposed significant reforms, including the addition of a fifth freedom to spur innovation, consolidation in key sectors to enhance global competitiveness, and a new framework for State aid governance.