Price monitoring software and competition – new possibilities for RPM in absence of sufficient deterrence

Price monitoring software and competition – new possibilities for RPM in absence of sufficient deterrence

Shortly after the dropping the A-bomb on Google for its alleged tying practices, the Commission imposed fines of over €111 million on Asus, Denon & Marantz, Philips and Pioneer for fixing the minimum resale prices of their online retailers. This recent case shows that the Commission is serious about taking on competition law infringements in the online sphere, however, it […]

Tales of two-sided markets, market definitions and anti-competitive effects – insights from Ohio v. American Express

Tales of two-sided markets, market definitions and anti-competitive effects – insights from Ohio v. American Express

  The case of Ohio v. Amex is the final phase of a long legal battle that started back in 2010 where Amex was accused of infringing section 1 of the Sherman Act for imposing its anti-steering provisions on merchants accepting Amex. While not delivering on all fronts, the case of Amex is an important one in the context of […]

Price discrimination and abuse of dominance – MEO Case C-525/16

Price discrimination and abuse of dominance – MEO Case C-525/16

The recent case of MEO delivers a meaningful clarification concerning the importance of an effects analysis in the case of art. 102 (c) TFEU. While not providing an ultimate solution for all comparable future cases, the CJEU in this case clearly indicates that term ‘competitive disadvantage’ constitutes an independent element of art. 102 (c) TFEU that requires proof.   Background […]

2017-713 Report – Riva Fire v Commission

2017-713 Report – Riva Fire v Commission

  Court Court of Justice  Date of ruling  21 September 2017 Case name (short version) Riva Fire v Commission  Case citation Case C-89/15 P ECLI:EU:C:2017:713  Key words  Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Italian producers of reinforcing bars — Fixing of prices and limiting and controlling output and sales — Infringement of Article 65 CS — Annulment of the initial decision by the General […]

The EU Commission’s Qualcomm decision – does it take two to tango?

The EU Commission’s Qualcomm decision – does it take two to tango?

In its latest strike against anti-competitive behaviour in the tech industry, the EU Commission has fined the US chipset manufacturer Qualcomm over 997 million Euros for imposing an exclusive purchasing obligation on one of its major customers and preventing competitors’ access to the market for baseband chipsets. This blogpost gives a brief overview of the decision based on the Commission’s […]

Can consumers pay too much when they pay nothing? The Bundeskartellamt’s Facebook case

Can consumers pay too much when they pay nothing? The Bundeskartellamt’s Facebook case

Can consumers pay too much when they pay nothing? The question might seem absurd, but a recent investigation by the Bundeskartellamt raises the question: it is accusing Facebook, which offers its services for free, of an infringement that looks a lot like excessive pricing. In this blog post, I unpack the Facebook case by explaining the social network’s business model, […]

The first judgement of 2018: Hoffman-La Roche v AGCM (Case C- 179/16) – a remarkable case for its unremarkable implications

The first judgement of 2018: Hoffman-La Roche v AGCM (Case C- 179/16) – a remarkable case for its unremarkable implications

It goes without saying that the name Hoffmann La-Roche serves as an indispensable reference case for most competition lawyers, making it a great case for the launch of a new competition law blog! Although this recent Hoffmann La-Roche case is not likely to become as unmissable a reference point as the ‘original’ Hoffman La-Roche case, it is nevertheless noteworthy. The […]