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
* This entry is a re-post of the contributor’s CCM Blog post, find link here. On 24 January 2023 the U.S. Department of Justice (‘DoJ’), joined by multiple U.S. States including California and New York, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google alleging that the “industry behemoth […] has corrupted legitimate competition in the ad…
Summary The Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) published a 157-page report on 9th February 2023 (see here the press release), focusing on issues in the market structure and the lack of competitive pressure in the markets of essential software for smartphones (mobile OS) and app distribution services, both of which Apple and Google mainly provide….
It would no longer be surprising to see competition or regulatory authorities blaming digital platforms for favouring their own services on their own platforms. In particular, in Europe, seeing the General Court’s Google decisions (see e.g., Johannes Persch’s blog posts on Shopping and Android) and the self-preferencing obligation of the Digital Markets Act (see, e.g.,…
Facts and court proceedings Before the start of the liberalization process in 1999 with Legislative Decree 79/1999 (“Decreto Bersani”), the Italian electricity market was run singlehandedly by the Ente Nazionale Energia Elettrica (Enel), born with the nationalization of electricity in 1962. As the former Italian legal monopolist, Enel was integrated into all stages of the…
Lawmakers and Amazon.com are involved in a constant cat-and-mouse game. Amazon.com is the big winner when consumers and businesses extensively use its digital ecosystem. As a reaction, lawmakers regulate big tech companies to protect end users and business users. This blog post argues that these regulations are not always effective and that their application is…
Jurisdiction after DB Station At the end of last year, the ECJ rendered a much-anticipated ruling in the DB Station case (C-721/10), which fundamentally clarified the hierarchy between regulators and civil courts in abuse of dominance cases relating to regulated infrastructure sectors. After lengthy national proceedings, the ECJ decided that national civil courts can only…
In recent years, competition authorities around the world have been scrutinising new types of behaviour that might be deemed abusive within the context of antitrust laws. Although those relating to digital markets receive the most attention, not a day passes by without a surprising decision announced by the authorities or competent courts. The decision of…
On 19 January 2023, the EU Court of Justice, answering questions from the Italian Council of State, confirmed that the Intel effects-based approach applies also to exclusive dealing practices and held that competition authorities must duly examine economic evidence produced by dominant undertakings. The court also held that, under certain narrow circumstances, conduct implemented by…
Last 23 December 2022, the Bundeskartellamt, the Federal Cartel Office (FCO), sent a statement of objections (SOO) to Google regarding its data processing terms. This SOO follows the Bundeskartellamt’s prior designation as an undertaking with paramount significance for competition across markets under the German DMA-like provision of Section 19a GWB. Looking at the SOO and…
On 12 January 2023, the EU Court of Justice upheld the EU General Court’s judgment imposing a fine on Lithuanian Railways for dismantling a section of the railway track. While reaffirming its essential facility case law (Bronner), the Court confirmed that the Bronner case law did not apply to the deliberate destruction of State-owned infrastructure…
