On December 9, 2020, the Court of Justice annulled the Commission’s decision that accepted Paramount’s commitments to remove from its licensing agreements with broadcasters any obligation that prevents broadcasters from responding to cross-border requests for pay-TV subscriptions (the “Commitments Decision”).[1] The Court of Justice concluded that the Commitments Decision breached the principle of proportionality because it negated contractual rights of Canal+ and other counterparties to Paramount’s licensing agreements who were not involved in the Commission’s proceedings.
CMA’s Digital Markets Taskforce Proposes a New Regulatory Regime for Digital Markets
On 15 October 2020, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) revoked a £300,000 penalty it had imposed on JD Sports Fashion plc for breach of an interim enforcement order (IEO) issued in connection with JD Sports’ completed acquisition of Footasylum plc. The penalty was withdrawn “[i]n light of issues raised on appeal.” This is the first time that a CMA procedural fine has been revoked or overturned on appeal. On 19 and 20 October 2020, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) heard Facebook’s appeal against the CMA’s refusal to grant a derogation from an IEO issued in connection with Facebook’s completed acquisition of GIPHY, Inc. This article considers potential implications of these cases for future UK mergers.
Proposals for Reform of Competition Law Policy: Proposed Revision of the Commission’s Market Definition Guidance
Over the past several months, there have been a number of statements by politicians and Member State governments regarding the reform of EU competition law. Much of this debate is fundamentally linked to how authorities should define the relevant product and geographic markets that guide their antitrust and merger investigations.
New Investigative Power for the French Competition Authority to Access Telephone Communications Data
Decree n°2019-1247 of November 28, 2019, published in the Official Journal of the French Republic on November 29, 2019 (the “Decree”), provides the procedural framework for the FCA’s new power to access telephone communications data for the purpose of antitrust investigations under Article L. 450-3-3 of the French Commercial Code. This framework was introduced by the Pacte Law [1] and allows the FCA to request access to technical information regarding the identity of a caller, the telecommunication terminals used, the data, time, and duration of each call, and the phone numbers called. It will be operational as soon as the Data Request Supervisor (“contrôleur des demandes de données de connexion”) is appointed (the Supervisor will be appointed among the judges of the French Administrative or Civil Supreme Court).[2]
The French Supreme Court Reiterates That During Dawn Raids the Legal Privilege Is Only Applicable To Attorney-client Communications Which Concern the Exercise of the Rights of Defence
On November 25, 2020, the French Supreme Court ruled that attorney-client communications could not be seized during dawn raids provided they are related to the exercise of the client’s rights of defence.
The French Competition Authority Finds That Intra- Group Bids to a Tender No Longer Fall Within the Ambit of Competition Law
Sector Inquiries Into Consumer Law Issues
The 2017 Amendment of the ARC granted the FCO the competence to conduct sector inquiries into consumer protection issues. The FCO recently published the results of two sector inquiries—into smart TVs and fake user reviews—and announced another sector inquiry into messenger services.
CMA Proposes New Procedural and Substantive Merger Guidance
On 6 November, the CMA published new draft guidance on jurisdiction and procedure in UK merger cases (Draft J&P Guidance) and on the CMA’s mergers intelligence function. On 17 November, it published new draft guidance on the substantive assessment of mergers in the UK (Draft Substantive Guidance). The draft sets of Guidance incorporate developments in the case law, reflect the evolution of the CMA’s policies and procedures, and take account of changes in the legal framework concerning public interest mergers. Together, they confirm the CMA’s expansive approach to asserting jurisdiction and reinforce a more interventionist and less formalistic approach to assessing mergers, especially in digital markets, that has been evident in the run-up to Brexit.
Presumption of Decisive Influence: Court of Justice Confirms in Pirelli That Parent Companies Will Pay the Price for Errant Subsidiaries
On October 28, 2020, the Court of Justice rejected an appeal by Pirelli & C. SpA (“Pirelli”) against a 2018 judgment of the EU General Court upholding a 2014 Commission decision which held the power cables manufacturer jointly and severally liable, with its former subsidiary Prysmian, for Prysmian’s participation in a bid-rigging cartel. Pirelli’s appeal focused on the concept of parental liability and the Commission’s obligation to explain its reasoning.
CMA’s Standstill Enforcement Under the Spotlight
On 15 October 2020, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) revoked a £300,000 penalty it had imposed on JD Sports Fashion plc for breach of an interim enforcement order (IEO) issued in connection with JD Sports’ completed acquisition of Footasylum plc. The penalty was withdrawn “[i]n light of issues raised on appeal.” This is the first time that a CMA procedural fine has been revoked or overturned on appeal. On 19 and 20 October 2020, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) heard Facebook’s appeal against the CMA’s refusal to grant a derogation from an IEO issued in connection with Facebook’s completed acquisition of GIPHY, Inc. This article considers potential implications of these cases for future UK mergers.