Abuse of dominance, Advertising, Algorithms, Google, Türkiye

, (ACTECON)/ /Leave a comment

Introduction In the previous days, the Turkish Competition Authority (“TCA”) has published its reasoned decision[1]The TCA’s dated 12.11.2020 and numbered 20-49/675-295. regarding the investigation conducted against Google.[2]It is the economic entity composed of Google Reklamcılık ve Pazarlama Ltd. Şti., Google International LLC, Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited and Alphabet Inc. The decision comprises of the…

European Union, Google, India

(UCLouvain)/ /Leave a comment

In May 2020, Google integrated its free video conferencing service Meet into its free client mail service Gmail as a pre-installed service that can only be hidden, not deleted, by the consumers by modifying the settings. This conduct could be assessed in competition law as an abuse of dominance, namely a tying sensu stricto, consisting…

Digital Markets Act, World Competition Law and Economics Review

(Bird and Bird, Belgium)/ /Leave a comment

World Competition’s Editor, José Rivas, recently interviewed German MEP Andreas Schwab (EPP), the Rapporteur for the proposed Digital Markets Act (DMA), on the goals and challenges of the DMA. The interview is the first filmed guest editorial for World Competition and also the first time the publication invited a member of the European Parliament to…

Competition Law 2020

(University of Vienna, Austria)/ /Leave a comment

The Kluwer Competition Law Blog will remain open but slow down a bit in the coming weeks. We hope you are having a wonderful summer! If you don’t want to miss out on reading about competition law developments in the meantime, we recommend catching up on our series on the main 2020 developments in key…

Abuse of dominance, Excessive pricing, Netherlands, Pharmaceuticals

, (Bird & Bird)/ /Leave a comment

The Netherlands Authority for the Consumer and Markets’ (“ACM“) announced focus on drug price developments has finally come to a tangible enforcement result: a fine of almost EUR 20 million imposed on Leadiant, manufacturer of the orphan drug CDCA-Leadiant. This penalty decision follows the announcement by the ACM in 2018, repeated in2020 and 2021, that…

Damages, European Court of Justice, European Union, Jurisdiction, Private enforcement

(bureau Brandeis Paris)/ /Leave a comment

The Court of Justice of the European Union provides useful guidance on the interpretation of the concept of “the place where the damage occurred” to ascertain which court within a Member State has jurisdiction over a follow-on cartel damages claim. Pursuant to settled case-law interpreting Article 7(2) Brussels I bis[1], the court having jurisdiction over…

Brexit, Private enforcement, State aid, United Kingdom

(Gleiss Lutz)/ /Leave a comment

For many Britainophiles in the EU, the noise of the Brexiteers and their shouting about “world-beating Britain” during the last five years of the departure process have been hard to bear. However, the constant banging has also at times obscured the excellent work still being carried out by legal minds on the other side of…

Cartels, Collusion, Green Deal, HBER, Horizontal, Leniency, Settlement, Sustainability, Technological Development

(University of Vienna, Austria) and (General Court)/ /3 Comments

On 8 July 2021, the Commission found that Daimler, BMW and the Volkswagen Group (Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche) violated competition law by colluding on technical development in the area of emission cleaning for new passenger diesel cars, fining the latter two a total of €875 million. The current hype regarding competition law and sustainability comes…

Digital markets, India, Regulation

(L&L Partners New Delhi)/ /Leave a comment

The digital payments sector in India has grown exponentially over the last five years due to deeper data and smartphone penetration. The Unified Payment Interface (UPI) system launched by the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) has been the main driver of this growth. FY 2019-20 witnessed UPI transactions in India grow exponentially at the…

Pricing, Switzerland, Vertical agreements, Vertical restraints

, (Lenz & Staehelin)/ /1 Comment

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court (the “Court”) found in its decision of February 4, 2021, 2C_149/2018 (the “Decision”) that Pfizer Ltd. (“Pfizer”) had entered into an unlawful vertical price agreement (concerted practice) with pharmacies and physicians limiting competition by issuing vertical price recommendations for Viagra. The decision raises questions as to whether and under what…