Anticompetitive business practices in which a dominant firm may engage in order to maintain or increase its position in the market. These business practices by the firm, not without controversy, may be considered as “abusive or improper exploitation” of monopolistic control of a market aimed at restricting competition. The term abuse of dominant position has been explicitly incorporated in competition legislation of various countries such as Canada, the EU and Germany. In the United States, the counterpart provisions would be those dealing with monopoly and attempts to monopolize or monopolization of a market.
Source: OECD
On July 17, 2019, the German Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office, “FCO”) terminated its dominance probe into Amazon’s business terms towards sellers on its marketplace after Amazon agreed to various changes, see press release here here. Amazon will implement the changes within 30 days, not only in Germany, but for all of its marketplaces in Europe,…
On 16th April 2019, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) ordered a probe against the multinational technology company, Google, for abusing its dominant position in clear violation of Section 4 of the (Indian) Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’).[1] The present case was filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act, alleging Google LLC and Google India Private…
On 1 July 2019, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) made public three sets of regulations to implement China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML): the Interim Regulation Prohibiting Monopoly Agreements (SAMR Agreements Regulation); the Interim Regulation Prohibiting Conduct Abusing Dominant Market Positions (SAMR Abuse of Dominance Regulation); and the Interim Regulation Preventing Conduct Abusing Administrative Rights…
Introduction The Authority for Consumers and Markets (“ACM“, the Dutch competition authority) was in 2017 – after years of silence – finally able to fine an undertaking for abuse of dominance. A heavy fine of almost € 41 million was imposed on the state-owned Dutch railway operator N.V. Nederlandse Spoorwegen (“NS“). According to ACM, NS abused…
On January 30 2019, the Danish Competition Council (the “DCC”) found that ambulance services provider, Falck, had abused its dominant position under Article 102 TFEU. The DCC held that following a failed tender bid to the Region of Southern Denmark, the company devised a comprehensive internal and external communications’ strategy to make it difficult for…
In 2018 the Turkish Competition Authority (“TCA”) had issued three landmark decisions regarding the Turkish electricity sector. These decisions concern the largest incumbent companies operating providing electricity distribution and retail sale services in various regions of Turkey, namely; CK[1], Enerjisa[2] and Bereket[3]. In these three decisions, the TCA had imposed total fines amounting to TRY…
After Google has been fined several times for breach of (EU) competition rules the last couple of years, it might now be Apple’s turn. Last month (March 2019), Spotify filed a complaint against Apple with the European Commission. The Dutch Authority for Consumers & Markets (“ACM”) immediately responded by stating that ACM is finalizing its…
On 24 July 2015 an amendment to the Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act (“PCA”) was promulgated, introducing a novel type of infringement – abuse of stronger bargaining position. Article 37a of the PCA reads as follows: Paragraph 1: “Any act or omission of an undertaking with a stronger bargaining position, which contravenes good-faith commercial practice…
In a recent judgment providing a preliminary ruling in the case, Apple Sales International et al. v. EBizcuss.com (C-595/17, October 24, 2018) (“EBizcuss.com”), the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) affirmed that jurisdiction clauses subject to EU law may be enforced by Member State courts in the context of actions for damages for abuse of dominance…
Summary On 14 March 2019, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) decided to close its investigation into a discount scheme by Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited (MSD).[1] The CMA concluded that there were no grounds for it to take action, since MSD’s discount strategy was not likely to limit competition in anticipation of the…
