Consumer Goods & Retail

On October 26, 2023, the European Court of Justice issued a preliminary ruling in EDP – Energias de Portugal and Others,[1] upon request from the Lisbon Court of Appeals, which had asked for clarification on how to assess non-compete clauses under Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU and whether these could constitute “by object” restrictions.  The Court of Justice clarified the standard of assessment of such non-compete clauses, confirming that they can be categorized as restrictions by object if they display a sufficient degree of harm to competition.

On October 18, 2023, the French Cour de cassation upheld the Paris Court of Appeals’ ruling finding that the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) had rightly calculated the amount of the fine imposed on L’Oréal in 2014 for its alleged involvement in a cartel in the personal care products industry.[1] The French Cour de cassation confirmed that the sales of a subsidiary that did not itself participate in the infringement can be included in the calculation of the fine if these sales have been affected by the infringement sanctioned.

In a decision dated September 26, 2023, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) imposed a €750,000 penalty on the French tobacco shops trade union, the Confédération Nationale des Buralistes de France (“CNBF”),for boycotting practices (the “Decision”).[1]  The FCA found that the trade union had sought to exclude rivals from the distribution of gambling games issued by La Française des Jeux (“FDJ”), the state-owned company responsible for operating the national lottery in France.

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 September 6, 2023, the French Supreme Court (“Cour de cassation”) upheld the Paris Court of Appeal’s judgment which had dismissed Carrefour’s damage claim against Vania Expansion (“Vania”) [1] following Vania’s participation in the home and personal care cartel.[2]  The French Cour de cassation noted that it is up to the alleged victim to demonstrate that it has not passed on the overcharge to consumers.

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]

The new draft guidelines depart from decades of practice by introducing novel presumptions that could make it harder for mergers to obtain regulatory clearance from the agencies.

On July 19, 2023, the FTC and DOJ published draft merger guidelines.[1]  Historically, the purpose of these guidelines has been to provide the public, including companies whose transactions are potentially subject to agency review, with information about how the agencies analyze mergers to identify potential competitive harm.  The guidelines have no force of law and are not binding on the courts, though courts have relied on them as persuasive authority to varying degrees.  Past iterations of the guidelines have therefore provided a neutral explanation of the agencies’ approach, including descriptions of the economic tools that they and the courts can use to assess a merger’s likely competitive effects.

On July 4, 2023, the Commission conditionally approved, in Phase I, Advent’s acquisition of market research provider GfK through its subsidiary NielsenIQ, after Advent pulled and refiled the merger notification.[1]  The approval is subject to the divestment of GfK’s global consumer panel services (“CPS”) business, excluding Russia.[2]