On July 8, 2020, the Dortmund Regional Court for the first time considered a group liability of all companies forming an economic unit for cartel damages.[1] The court concluded—in line with the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU”) recent case law—that the broader notion of an “undertaking” (in the sense of the economic unit) under EU law also applies in damages actions under national law.
Industries
FCO Approves Acquisition of Lovoo by Parship and Elite Partner
On July 6, 2020, the FCO approved the acquisition of online dating platform provider The Meet Group Inc. (USA), active on the German market through its mobile dating app Lovoo GmbH (“Lovoo”), by the ProSiebenSat.1 Media SE (“ProSiebenSat.1”) group, which owns online dating platforms from Parship and Elite Partner.[1]
The Commission Invites Feedback on the 1997 Market Definition Notice
On June 26, 2020, the Commission opened a public consultation on the 1997 Market Definition Notice (the “Notice”), which sets out the Commission’s formal guidance on the definition of the relevant product and geographic market in competition cases.[1] Until October 9, 2020, anyone interested may visit the Commission’s website (here) and submit comments and respond to the Commission’s questionnaire about the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, and value of the Notice as a guidance instrument.
Churchill Gowns Ltd and Student Gowns Ltd v Ede & Ravenscroft Ltd and Ors
On 26 June 2020, the CAT published a summary of a claim brought by Churchill Gowns and Student Gowns seeking…
Royal Mail Group Ltd v DAF Trucks Ltd & Ors; BT Group plc & Ors v DAF Trucks Ltd & Ors; Dawsongroup plc & Ors v DAF Trucks N.V. & Ors (“Trucks”)
On 23 June 2020, the CAT handed down its judgment on the costs of a preliminary issues hearing in the…
German Federal Court of Justice Provisionally Finds Facebook’s Data Collection Practices Abusive
On June 23, 2020, the Federal Court of Justice (“FCJ”) overturned the Düsseldorf Court of Appeals’ (“DCA”) interim decision and rejected Facebook Inc.’s (“Facebook”) request to suspend the enforceability of the Federal Cartel Office’s (“FCO”) prohibition decision.[1] The FCJ disagreed with the FCO’s determination of an abuse based on a violation of data protection law, but instead examined Facebook’s data usage exclusively under competition law.
Supreme Court Rejects Mastercard and Visa Appeal on Liability but Allows “Pass On” Appeal
On 17 June 2020, the Supreme Court handed down a much anticipated judgment concerning the default multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) set by Mastercard and Visa (together, the Appellants).[1]
The Paris Court of Appeals Orders Orange To Pay Over €180 Million in Follow-on Antitrust Damage Claim
On June 17, 2020, the Paris Court of Appeals (“the Court”) ordered Orange and its subsidiary Orange Caraïbe to pay (jointly and severally) €181.5 million in antitrust damages and €68 million in interest to rival Digicel (formerly Bouygues Telecom Caraïbe) as compensation for the Orange group’s anti-competitive behavior across several markets in the French West Indies.[1] The Court’s decision overturns a 2017 first instance ruling by the Paris Commercial Court.[2]
The Commission Investigates Apple’s Rules Governing the Distribution of Third-party Apps and Services on iOS Devices
On June 16, 2020, the Commission launched four formal investigations into Apple’s business practices. Three of the investigations seem to follow the same theory of harm and zero in on contract terms that Apple imposes on developers wishing to distribute apps through the App Store on Apple devices, and whether Apple has been using those terms to disadvantage app developers that compete against Apple’s own apps.[1]
The Commission Publishes Its Decision to Fine Qualcomm for Abuse of Dominant Position
On June 8, 2020, the Commission published its decision to fine U.S. based chipset producer Qualcomm a total of €997 million for abusing its dominant position by offering payments to Apple under the condition that Apple purchases from Qualcomm all LTE chipsets for iPhones and iPads.[1] This is the first time the Commission issued a decision on exclusivity payments since the Court of Justice’s ground-breaking Intel judgment in 2017.[2] Qualcomm’s appeal against the decision is pending before the General Court.[3]