On 8 March, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) handed down a third judgment in two years in
A Bite At The Apple: The Commission Imposes Its First-ever Antitrust Fine On Apple Ahead Of The Entry Into Force Of The Digital Markets Act
On March 4, 2024, the Commission fined Apple €1.8 billion—its first ever antitrust fine imposed on Apple and third largest ever—for abusing its dominant position on the market for the distribution of music streaming apps to iPhone and iPad users (“iOS users”) through its App Store (“Decision”).[1]
The French Competition Authority fines Chocolats De Neuville for hindering its franchisees’ commercial freedom
On February 6, 2024, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) imposed a four million euros fine on chocolate maker De Neuville (“De Neuville”) and its parent company Savencia Holding for restricting their franchisees’ freedom to sell De Neuville chocolates online and to professional customers.[1]
Revolution For Sport Gatekeepers? The Grand Chamber Of The Court Of Justice Rules On The European Super League And International Skating Union Cases
On December 21, 2023, the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”) delivered two of the most anticipated judgments of
The French Competition Authority fines Sony for abusing its dominant position in the market for the supply of PS4 video game controllers
On December 20, 2023, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) fined Sony EUR 13.5 million for allegations of abuse of dominant position in the supply of video game controllers for its PlayStation 4 (“PS4”) console between November 2015 and April 2020.[1]
French Competition Authority Sanctions Rolex With a Record Fine for Prohibiting Online Sales
On December 19, 2023, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) fined Rolex for having prevented its authorized retailers from selling its products online for over ten years (the “Decision”).[1] The FCA considered that such a prohibition constituted a vertical agreement restricting competition, rejecting Rolex’s argument that it was necessary to prevent counterfeiting and parallel trade. The FCA imposed a fine of €91 million, which is the highest fine imposed to date by the FCA in relation to a prohibition of online sales. The FCA also investigated whether Rolex had engaged in resale price maintenance between 2011 and 2022, but ultimately rejected this prong of the complainants’ claim for lack of evidence.
Opening Up The Wallet: Apple To Offer Rivals Access To NFC System On iOS Devices
In a move intended to put an end to the Commission’s recent investigation into mobile payment restrictions on iOS, Apple offered third-party developers access to the tap-and-go system (i.e., Near-Field Communication or “NFC”) on its devices.[1]
The French Competition Authority Fines Mariage Frères for Anticompetitively Restricting its Distributors’ Commercial Freedom
On December 11, 2023, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) imposed a €4 million fine on Mariage Frères SAS and one of its subsidiaries, Mariage Frères International SAS (together, “Mariage Frères”), a French producer of premium teas.[1] The FCA found that Mariage Frères had been prohibiting distributors from (i) reselling its branded products online and (ii) reselling its branded products to other retailers for over 14 years, two practices prohibited by the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (“VBER”) under both the former and new regimes.[2]
EDP – Energias de Portugal and Others (Case C-331/21): Court of Justice Clarifies the Treatment of Non-compete Clauses Between Potential Competitors Under Article 101 TFEU
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.
Bulgarian Energy Holding v. Commission (Case T-136/19): Revamped Energy To Overturn Abuse of Dominance Decisions on Account of Errors of Fact and Assessment
On October 25, 2023, the General Court delivered its judgment in Bulgarian Energy Holding and Others v. Commission.[1] In a shift in the case law that signals an increased focus on effects in Article 102 cases, the General Court concluded that the Commission failed to establish that the examined conduct constituted a refusal to supply, let alone an abuse of dominance by Bulgarian Energy Holding, Bulgartransgaz, and Bulgargaz (together, “the BEH Group”). The judgment clarifies the evidentiary standard required to establish causality between purportedly abusive practices and their resulting potential anticompetitive effects. It also concludes that the Commission infringed the BEH Group’s rights of defense during the administrative procedure. The judgment signals the General Court’s willingness to scrutinize technical factual assessments that are often heavily contested by companies in competition law investigations.