In May 2019, the CMA obtained competition disqualification undertakings (“CDUs”) from three individuals for involvement in a cartel relating to
Strident Publishing Limited v Creative Scotland
On 17 April 2020, the CAT handed down its preliminary issue judgment on whether the defendant, Creative Scotland, constitutes an undertaking for the purposes of the Competition Act 1998. The issue arose in a claim by Strident Publishing Limited, a small independent book publisher, for an alleged abuse of dominance by Creative Scotland in breach of the Chapter 2 prohibition, by providing “investment finance” to publishers of literary works.
Secretary of State for Health v Servier and Others
On 17 April 2019, the High Court ruled on the extent to which factual findings of the General Court of the European Union are binding on claimants in follow-on damages actions before UK national courts. This case concerns damages claims against Servier, following the European Commission’s 2014 infringement decision, which found that Servier had abused a dominant position and entered ‘pay for delay’ agreements with rivals.
Merricks v Mastercard
Following a 2007 European Commission infringement decision concerning Mastercard’s multilateral interchange fee (MIF), Mr. Merricks sought to bring collective proceedings against Mastercard. These proceedings sought to claim damages on behalf of 46.2 million people in the UK who were purportedly affected by the MIF.
Dixon/Europcar v Mastercard
On 9 April 2019, the CAT granted Mastercard partial permission to appeal the CAT’s February 2019 judgment. In that judgment
Enforcement by Numbers
As the charts below show, enforcement by concurrent competition agencies has increased substantially since the ERRA came into force.[1]
Five Years of “Enhanced Concurrency” in UK Antitrust
In November 2013, David Currie – then Chairman of the CMA – identified the low volume of competition cases in regulated sectors: “These sectors account in total for some 25% of the economy. They are also typically characterised by monopolistic or oligopolistic market structures. This might suggest the need for more, rather than less, competition enforcement than in other parts of the economy.”[1]
U.K. Antitrust Collective Damages Action
On 11 March 2019, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) announced that it had received two applications to bring collective proceedings on behalf of all affected commuters, alleging that three U.K. train operators had engaged in exploitative abuses of dominant positions.[1] This is the first time that claimants have filed applications to commence collective proceedings on a standalone basis (i.e., without the benefit of a prior infringement decision that binds the Courts) since the introduction of the collective action procedure on 1 October 2015.
Balmoral Tanks Limited v CMA
On 15 February 2019, the Court of Appeal dismissed Balmoral Tanks’ (Balmoral) appeal against the October 2017 CAT judgment upholding the CMA’s decision to fine Balmoral £130,000 for exchanging pricing information with three other suppliers of galvanised steel tanks at a single meeting in July 2012. Although Balmoral refused to join the cartel operated by the three other suppliers, its CEO nonetheless remained at the meeting and shared information about Balmoral’s current and future pricing intentions.
DSG Retail Ltd, Dixons Carphone Plc, and Europcar UK Limited v Mastercard Inc.
On 14 February 2019, the CAT rejected Mastercard’s attempts to use the evolution of the limitation period for damages claims in the CAT to exclude historic losses. The relevant claims were brought by Dixons and Europcar in reliance on the EC’s December 2007 decision against Mastercard.[1] The EC found that Mastercard had infringed Article 101 TFEU between 22 May 1992 and 19 December 2007 through its use of multi-lateral interchange fees for cross-border transactions made using Mastercard credit and debit cards.