On December 2, 2020, the Regional Court of Bonn dismissed BayWa AG’s (“BayWa”) action for state liability against the Republic of Germany and the FCO for a breach of the constitutional prohibition of discrimination in the context of the FCO’s leniency program.[1]
Germany

FCO Conditionally Clears Furniture Merger
On November 25, 2020, after an in-depth investigation, the FCO approved the acquisition by Mann Mobilia Beteiligungs GmbH (part of the XXXLutz Group) of 50% of the shares in Möbel Management Holding GmbH & Co. KG and Roller GmbH & Co. KG (part of the Tessner Group), subject to the divestiture of 23 furniture outlets.[1] The FCO’s clearance only relates to the sales side of the transaction, i.e., the relationship between furniture retailers and consumers, whereas on November 30, 2020, the European Commission unconditionally cleared the transaction with respect to the procurement side, i.e., the relationship between furniture retailers and manufacturers.[2]
FCJ Reaffirmed Position on FRAND Defense
On November 20, 2020, at the request of Sisvel International Group (“Sisvel”), the Federal Court of Justice (“FCJ”) granted a preliminary injunction against Chinese mobile phone manufacturer Haier Corporation Group (“Haier”).[1] The injunction is another victory for Sisvel in its patent disputes with Haier following a preliminary injunction issued in May 2020.[2] The FCJ used the recent decision as an opportunity to further elaborate on the obligations of patent holders and potential patentees under the Huawei/ZTE jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”).[3]
Sector Inquiries Into Consumer Law Issues
The 2017 Amendment of the ARC granted the FCO the competence to conduct sector inquiries into consumer protection issues. The FCO recently published the results of two sector inquiries—into smart TVs and fake user reviews—and announced another sector inquiry into messenger services.
FCO Allows Join Marketing of Advertising Space in Newspapers
On October 27, 2020, the FCO decided that it had no objections to the planned joint venture and cooperation between the German newspaper publishers Süddeutsche Zeitung GmbH (“SZ”) and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung GmbH (“FAZ”) relating to the joint commercialization of their national advertising inventory.[1] Under German law, and in contrast to EU law, potential coordination effects between the parent companies are not already assessed as part of the merger control process relating to the creation of the joint venture, but are reviewed separately under the restrictive practices provisions of the ARC.[2]
A Sports Association Abused Its Monopoly by Discriminating Against Affiliated Athletes
On October 7, 2020, the Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeals found the top-tier sports association for beach volleyball (Deutscher Volleyball-Verband, “DVV”) liable for abusing its dominant position by discriminating the plaintiffs, two female professional volleyball players.[1] The plaintiffs were awarded USD 17,000 in damages reflecting the prize money the plaintiffs missed out on during that period of time.
Brand-gating: FCO Investigates Cooperation Between Amazon and Apple
In October 2020, the Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”) initiated an investigation against Amazon’s and Apple’s agreement to exclude non-authorized dealers from selling Apple products on the Amazon Marketplace.[1] While the FCO has not published a press release about the proceedings yet, the investigation is expected to focus on whether combatting product piracy justifies this practice.
Dortmund Regional Court on Cartels Follow-on Damage Claim Quantification
On September 30, 2020, the Dortmund Regional Court issued a ruling in a follow-on damages action related to the so-called Rail Cartel (“Schienenkartell”).[1] It is one of the still very few cartel follow-on damages cases in which a German court awarded damages.
FCJ Strikes Down Passing-on Defense When Damages Are Spread Across Many Consumers
On September 23, 2020, the FCJ overturned a judgement by the DCA in which the Essen Transportation Authority brought a follow-on damages action against members of the so-called Rail Cartel (“Schienenkartell”).[1] It referred the case back to the DCA and provided further guidance to the DCA in relation to the applicable burden of proof as well as the scope of the passing-on defense.
FCJ Clarifies Scope of Binding Effect of Cartels Settlement Decisions and Confirms Existence of Presumption of Damages
On September 23, 2020, the FCJ handed down its much anticipated first judgment in relation to damages claims resulting from the trucks cartel and provided helpful clarifications on some key questions regarding cartel follow-on damages actions.[1]