Technology, Media & Communications

On March 26, 2021, the Commission adopted a Communication on the application of the referral mechanism pursuant to Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation (“EUMR”)[1] and announced a further simplification of merger control proceedings,[2] effective immediately.

On March 25, 2021,[1] the Court of Justice ruled that to demonstrate abuse, where a dominant undertaking has already offered access to its infrastructure but on unfair terms, it is not necessary to show that access to the infrastructure is indispensable within the meaning of the Court of Justice’s Bronner essential facilities doctrine.

On March 24, 2021, the DCA stayed the proceedings regarding Facebook’s appeal against the FCO’s decision of 2019 prohibiting Facebook to combine data from different sources and referred a number of questions to the CJEU.[1] The CJEU is now called upon to consider the relevance infringements of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) under competition law.

On 18 March, the CMA published new Merger Assessment Guidelines (the New Guidelines). Under the New Guidelines, the CMA will adopt a more flexible approach to the substantive assessment of mergers, particularly in digital markets. The New Guidelines also suggest the CMA will look to intervene in mergers where market shares are low or where the evidence of anticompetitive effects is slim.

On March 17, 2021, the French Competition Authority (hereinafter, the “FCA”)[1] rejected the request for interim measures of various players in the online advertising industry concerning the introduction by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) of the App Tracking Transparency (“ATT”) feature as part of the upcoming changes in its iOS 14 operating system.

On March 9, 2021, the French Conseil d’Etat ruled that the employee representative body of the target company could appeal the FCA’s decision to clear the transaction. However, the Conseil d’Etat dismissed the appeal on the merits.[1]

On February 25, 2021, the Court of Justice held that the Commission and the Slovak competition authority did not infringe EU law when conducting two parallel investigations against Slovak Telekom.[1] Because the two investigations pertained to different product markets, regulators at the European and national level were entitled to proceed in parallel and eventually impose two distinct fines on Slovak Telekom.