Abuse

On September 30, 2022, the Council of State upheld the appeals submitted by Sicuritalia S.p.A., Lomafin Sicuritalia Group Holding S.p.A., Italpol Vigilanza S.r.l. and Mc Holding S.r.l. (the “Appellants”),[1] and annulled a decision of the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”) on alleged bid-rigging in open tender procedures for the provision of private security services in certain Italian regions.[2]

On September 20, 2022, Advocate General Rantos delivered his opinion on the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (the “Düsseldorf Court”)’s request for a preliminary ruling concerning the decision of the Bundeskartellamt (German Federal Cartel Office, “FCO”) which had found that Meta Platforms (“Meta”, formerly Facebook Inc.) abused its dominant position in relation to the collection, processing, aggregation and use of personal data of its users in 2019.[1] The Advocate General concluded that a competition authority may examine, as an incidental question, the compliance of the practices under investigation with the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) rules, while informing and, where appropriate, consulting the competent supervisory authority on the basis of the GDPR.[2]

On September 14, 2022, the General Court partially annulled the Commission’s 2018 infringement decision which fined Google €4.3 billion for abusing its dominant position by imposing restrictions on Android device manufactures (“OEMs”) and mobile network operators (“MNOs”).[1] The General Court also found that the Commission’s investigation suffered from procedural errors and reduced the fine by €200 million.

On September 13, 2022, the ICA closed an investigation into an alleged abuse of dominance in the domestic market for the management of the recycling of polyethylene (“PE”) goods by the POLIECO consortium (“POLIECO”), the incumbent operator for end-of-life management of PE goods on behalf of producers and users, by accepting and making binding the commitments offered by POLIECO.[1]

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on 8 August 2022 set aside a £17.9 million fine against price comparison website Compare The Market, criticising the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) legal and evidential assessment of the case.  The CAT found that the CMA’s “anecdotal evidence[1] failed to prove that Compare The Market kept home insurance premiums artificially high by using most favoured nation clauses (MFNs) in its contracts with insurance providers.  The CMA has said it is disappointed with the CAT’s ruling and is considering its options, including a potential appeal.

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) last week fined pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and Flynn £63 million and £6.7 million for engaging in excessive pricing.  In the CMA’s view, the companies charged unfairly high prices for Phenytoin capsules, a genericised anti-epilepsy drug, in violation of competition law.

On July 14, 2022, Advocate General Rantos delivered his opinion in Unilever on two important questions referred to the Court of Justice:[1] (i) whether companies linked by contractual ties could constitute a “single economic unit”; and (ii) whether the Court of Justice’s ruling in Intel, that antitrust agencies must examine evidence put forward by the defendant that conduct is not capable of foreclosing equally efficient competitors, applies to practices beyond the exclusivity rebates considered in Intel.[2]

On July 14, 2022, the Commission invited comments on Amazon’s proposed commitments, offered under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003, in two investigations concerning practices that allegedly advantaged its own services on its online marketplace, contrary to Article 102 TFEU. The invitation for comments is open until September 9, 2022.