Abuse

On October 17, 2019, the Regional Administrative Tribunal for Latium (the “TAR Lazio”) ruled on appeals by companies belonging to the Enel and Acea groups, two major energy firms active, among others, in the distribution and sale of electricity in Italy, against Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”)’s decisions finding that the two incumbents had abused their dominant position in local markets for retail electricity supply.[1]

On October 8, 2019, the ICA found that the Italian Federation of Equestrian Sports (“FISE”) had (i) breached the commitments it offered in 2011, and (ii) abused its dominant position in the market for the organization of events and horse races having a professional, amateur or recreational nature, with a view to restricting the activities of amateur operators (or sports promotion bodies).[1]

On September 26, 2019, the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio (the “TAR Lazio”) rejected the appeal submitted by Società Italiana degli Autori ed Editori (“SIAE”) – the Italian copyright collecting society – against the 2018 decision by which the ICA imposed on the said undertaking a symbolic fine of €1,000 for abusing its dominant position in the market for the provision of copyright management services, in violation of Article 102 TFEU.[1]

On September 2, 2019, the Paris Commercial Court sanctioned Amazon for having imposed unfair conditions on businesses selling on its platform. Amazon received a record fine of €4 million and was ordered to remove or modify the contentious clauses from its contracts and terms of use within six months, failing which it will incur a periodic penalty of €10,000 for each day’s delay.

On August 26, 2019, the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal (“DCA”), in an interim decision, suspended the German Federal Competition Office’s (“FCO”) prohibition decision against Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”), expressing “serious doubts” about its legal basis.[1] This decision marks not only the second major setback for the FCO after the DCA’s annulment of the FCO’s Booking.com decision on price parity clauses earlier this year.[2] It might also constitute a major setback for the FCO’s efforts to act as a leading enforcer of competition law in the digital economy.