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]
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.
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]
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]
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.
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.
On October 18, 2023, the General Court dismissed[1] the appeals of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (“Teva”) and Cephalon Inc. (“Cephalon”) against the Commission’s decision imposing a €60.5 million fine on both pharmaceutical companies for pay-for-delay agreements.[2] The General Court confirmed the Commission’s conclusion that Teva and Cephalon’s patent settlement agreement was aimed at preventing Teva from entering the market with its generic modafinil drug, and therefore restricted competition by object and by effect.
On September 22, 2023, the European Commission (“the Commission”) re-adopted parts of its 2009 Intel decision[1] and imposed a fine of €376 million on Intel for abusing its dominance in x86 central processing units (“CPUs”) through naked restrictions.[2] The re-adopted decision follows the General Court’s 2022 renvoi judgment, which overturned the €1.06 billion fine that the Commission had originally imposed on Intel in 2009.[3] It marks the latest—but certainly not the last—development in a saga spanning over 20 years.
On 9 August 2023, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published a joint position paper on online choice architecture (OCA), titled “Harmful design in digital markets: How Online Choice Architecture practices can undermine consumer choice and control over personal information”. The paper forms part of the agencies’ work under the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum, which brings together multiple UK regulatory bodies to advance their combined thinking on regulatory issues in the digital economy.
On July 27, 2023, the General Rapporteur of the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) confirmed the notification to Apple of a statement of objections (“SO”) concerning potential anticompetitive practices in the sector for the distribution of mobile applications, likely to have consequences on several related markets for advertising and consumer services.[1]