ANTITRUST ALERT
ANTITRUST ALERT
A Global Resource for Compliance Officers & Legal Advisors
ANTITRUST ALERT
A Global Resource for Compliance Officers & Legal Advisors
Italian Developments
Subscribe to Italian Developments's Posts

International News Spotlight on Competition Law

by | Sep 21, 2022 | , , , , , , , , , ,

In line with the evolution of the economy and the ongoing growth of online business and global trade, we’re seeing a corresponding increase in competition regulation and a rise in enforcement across all authorities. In our latest International News, we take a deep dive into the issues at play.

The growth of the online economy has triggered the US Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) update of its 20 year old .com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising guide, and the development of an analytical framework for all digital distribution across the European Union. In just one seismic shift under the new EU Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720, dual-pricing, i.e., setting different wholesale prices for online/offline sales by the same distributor, is no longer considered a hardcore restriction unless its purpose is to prevent the effective use of the internet to sell the goods or services.

In the United States, there is an increased focus on anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions (M&A). The Biden Administration, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, and the FTC have all stated that the regulatory landscape needs to be reshaped to better reflect dynamic markets, and their priority is the aggressive pursuit of litigation against offending parties rather than the granting of consent decrees. The tendency to “sin first and beg forgiveness later” will emphatically no longer work, as a recent French gun-jumping case demonstrates.

Both the United States and the European Union have also turned their attention to investigating wage fixing and no-poach labour market violations that are not connected with M&A or business collaborations. It’s clear that competition/antitrust authorities are determined to expand their remit.

Read our full Spotlight on Competition Law here.



read more

Annual European Competition Review 2021

by , , , , , and | Feb 4, 2022 | , , , , , , , , , ,

In our super-connected age, we are inundated with information. It can be difficult to select what is really relevant to one’s business. The purpose of this Review is to provide legal counsel and their teams easy reference guidance on essential EU competition law developments covering key areas of law and policy, to help keep you up to date on the latest requirements.

Inside you’ll find:

Cartels and Restrictive Agreements
From geo-blocking to pay-for-delay agreements and bid-rigging, find out the latest legal developments in restrictive practices.

Abuse of Dominant Position
Excessive pricing in the healthcare sector and a monopoly on online searches are key areas of development.

Merger Control
Gun-jumping remains a real focus for the European courts, with additional judgments on the provision of misleading information in merger proceedings.

State Aid
Transfer pricing and rules governing subsidiaries are hot topics, with the courts keeping an eye on excess profits and tax rate schemes.

Legislative and Policy Developments
Digital markets is the focal point of policy development in Europe, as verticals agreements also come under scrutiny.

Click here to read the full Review.



read more

Unfair Commercial Practices: The European Court of Justice Specifies Criteria for Comparative Advertising

by | Feb 21, 2017 | ,

On 8 February 2017, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) handed down a judgment on a reference for a preliminary ruling stating that comparative advertising can be misleading if consumers are not provided with information on the different format or size of shops where the products are sold. In particular, according to the ECJ, consumers shall be informed of all the relevant elements regarding the comparison, including whether it is “made between prices charged in shops having larger sizes or formats in the advertiser’s retail chain and those displayed in shops having smaller sizes or formats in competitors’ retail chains”.

On 2 October 2013, ITM Alimentaire International SASU (ITM) sued Carrefour for damages alleging that the television advertising campaign launched by the company, consisting in a comparison between products charged in its shops and in competitors’ shops, was misleading. On 31 December 2014, the Commercial Court of Paris awarded damages to ITM and granted an injunction prohibiting the dissemination of the advertising. Carrefour appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Paris, which made a reference for a preliminary ruling to the ECJ, asking whether:

  1. a comparison of the price of goods sold by retail outlets is permitted only if the goods are sold in shops having the same format or of the same size;
  2. the fact that the shops whose prices are compared are of different sizes and formats can be considered as a material information that must be brought to the knowledge of the consumer; and
  3. If so, to what degree and/or via what medium that information must be disseminated to the consumer.

The ECJ found that in price comparative advertisements consumers shall be “informed clearly and in the advertisement itself that the comparison was made between the prices charged in shops in the advertiser’s retail chain having larger sizes or formats and those indicated in the shops of competing retail chains having smaller sizes or formats”.

Gabriele Giunta contributed to this blog post.



read more

Higher Mitigation of Fines Due to Prompt Implementation of Measures Addressing Authority’s Concerns in Unfair Commercial Practices Investigations

by | Feb 15, 2017 | ,

In a decision published on 10 February 2017, imposing Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A. (“Samsung”) fines totaling € 3.1 million for alleged aggressive unfair commercial practices, the Italian Competition Authority (the “Authority”) confirmed that the prompt implementation of measures aimed at addressing its concerns regarding alleged unfair commercial practices leads to a higher mitigation of the fine.

According to the Authority, Samsung would have: (i) provided consumers with incomplete and misleading information on the terms and conditions of the promotions; and (ii) forced consumers to provide their consent to the processing of their personal data for marketing purposes, as a condition to obtain the premiums related to the purchase of the product. In setting the amount of the fine, the Authority took into account the measures implemented by Samsung before and after the beginning of the proceeding. Indeed, in relation to the second allegation, the Authority considered the importance of the measures implemented before the opening of the proceeding and granted a significant reduction of the fine (25%). In relation to the first conduct, the Authority granted a lower reduction of the fine (15%), given that the measures aimed at addressing its concerns were adopted only after the opening of the investigation.

On 4 May 2016, the Authority opened the investigation following several complaints received from consumers and consumers’ associations. In particular, Samsung would have used claims aimed at promoting prize-giving events without providing consumers with all relevant information and using a font style, which would have been too small or difficult to read. The Authority also considered that the access to promotions’ rules in each point of sales or through the website was not sufficient in order to overcome this lack of information. Furthermore, as mentioned above, according to the Authority, Samsung would have forced consumers to provide their consent to the processing of personal data for purposes other than the ones necessary for obtaining the premium. During the proceeding, Samsung voluntarily submitted and implemented measures aimed at improving consumers’ awareness on the terms and conditions of the promotions. These measures included simplification of consumers’ involvement in prize-giving events, verification of consumers’ satisfaction, improvement of systems aimed at monitoring whether employees would effectively provide all the relevant information to consumers, streamline procedures for obtaining the premium, a more efficient handling of consumers’ complaints. Furthermore, Samsung also submitted that it had implemented other measures aimed at addressing the concerns related to the provision of the customers’ consent for the processing of their personal data. The Authority fined Samsung of € 3.1 million for alleged unfair commercial practices consisting of aggressive and misleading promotions related to the purchase of smartphone, smart TV and other Samsung’s products. However, in the calculation of the fine, the Authority acknowledged the relevance of the above mentioned measures granting a significant reduction of the applicable fine.

Gabriele Giunta (Trainee) contributed to this blog post.



read more

McDermott EU Competition Annual Review 2016

by | Feb 2, 2017 | , , , , , ,

It is difficult for General Counsel and their teams to monitor all new developments adequately. With the growth of the Internet and the daily updates to EU competition rules, everyone receives and has access to masses of information, but it is difficult to select that which is really relevant to one’s business.

McDermott’s EU Competition team across Brussels, France, Germany and Italy has authored the EU Competition Annual Review 2016 to help General Counsel and their teams to focus on the essential updates that they should be aware of.

This Special Report summarizes recent developments in EU competition rules during the year 2016 where several new regulations, notices and guidelines were issued by the European Commission and many interesting cases were decided by the General Court and the EU Court of Justice.

All these new rules and judicial decisions can be relevant for international companies operating in the EU. Indeed, in addition to the daily update, this booklet provides an overview of the main recent developments in EU competition rules and can be kept as a ready reference when dealing with complex issues of EU competition law.

Read the full report.



read more

An Increased Cooperation in Enforcement Activity: The Italian Competition Authority and the Italian Medicines Agency Sign a Memorandum of Understanding

by | Jan 23, 2017 | ,

On 19 January 2017, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) and the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) signed a memorandum of understanding in order to increase enforcement in the pharmaceutical sector by strengthening their investigation powers and facilitating the exchange of data. Under the agreement, AGCM and AIFA will inform each other on cases concerning alleged violations of rules enforced by one of them. In particular, in case of negotiations carried out by AIFA with pharmaceutical companies on the applicable drugs prices, or whether counterfeiting cases regarding pharmaceutical products emerge during an investigation. Furthermore, the authorities will cooperate in their advocacy activities and in carrying out sector enquiries. Finally, the authorities will exchange information and data on matters of common interest.

(more…)



read more

Finally Implemented! The Italian Council of Ministers Approves a Legislative Decree Implementing the EU Antitrust Damages Directive

by | Jan 17, 2017 | , ,

On 14 January 2017, the Italian Council of Ministers approved the Legislative Decree implementing Directive 2014/104/EU on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union (the “Directive”). The final version of the Legislative Decree has not been published yet on the Official Journal. However, the key points emerging from it include:

  1. A strengthened mechanism of evidence disclosure in actions for damages related to alleged infringements of competition rules. In fact, the judge will have the power to request the defendant or a third party, including the Italian Competition Authority (the “Authority”), to disclose relevant evidence which lies in their control.
  2. The extent to which Italian courts will be able to rely on decisions of the Italian Competition Authority or other national competition authorities. For instance, an infringement of competition law ascertained by a decision of the Italian Competition Authority (or appeal judgment), which is not subject to further means of appeal, will be deemed to be indisputably established for the purposes of an action for damages brought before the national courts under Article 101 or 102 TFEU or under national competition law.
  3. The rules applicable to limitation periods for bringing actions for damages, as well as how Italian courts shall assess the joint and several liabilities of companies which are found to have infringed competition rules, and how they shall quantify the harm suffered as a consequence of the alleged infringements.
  4. The business sections of the courts of Milan, Rome and Naples, identified as the only competent courts for such actions for damages, including class actions.

According to the established Italian case-law, in case of actions for damages regarding alleged violations of competition rules, the judge shall use all available investigation means in order to address the obstacles faced by the claimant to access the relevant evidence in antitrust cases, and therefore apply broadly the rules on the disclosure of evidence and information requests (Corte Suprema di Cassazione, judgment no. 11564 of 4 June 2015).

On 26 November 2014, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted the Directive, which entered into force 26 December 2014, setting 27 December 2016, as the deadline for its transposition at national level. On 27 October 2016, the Italian Council of Ministers approved an initial proposal for a Legislative Decree implementing the Directive and sent it to the relevant commissions of the Italian Parliament for their mandatory (non-binding) opinions. The Legislative Decree was therefore finally approved in the Council of Ministers’ meeting of 14 January 2017. Although it is difficult to predict the likely impact of the Legislative Decree, it will definitely provide a more certain legislative framework for companies and consumers interested in claiming damages on the basis of alleged antitrust infringements.

Gabriele Giunta contributed to this post. 



read more

Unfair Commercial Practices – The Italian Competition Authority and The Italian Communication Authority Sign a Memorandum of Understanding

by | Jan 17, 2017 | , ,

On 13 January 2017, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) and the Italian Communication Authority (AGCOM) signed a memorandum of understanding concerning several aspects of their cooperation in the application of consumers’ protection rules. Under the memorandum of understanding, in the case of consumers’ protection matters, which potentially involve both authorities, there will be coordinated actions, even during the preliminary investigation phase. Furthermore, AGCM will inform AGCOM on cases concerning the violations of rules enforced by AGCOM, which will do the same in case of hypothesis of unfair commercial practices in the electronic communications sector. The authorities agreed also to set up a standing working group in order to promote the debate on consumer protection issues. Finally, the agreement provides rules on the exchange of information between the authorities on investigations.

(more…)



read more

Sale of Serie A Broadcasting Rights, the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio Annuls the Decision of the Italian Competition Authority

by | Dec 30, 2016 | ,

On 23 December 2016, the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio (the TAR) annulled the decision of the Italian Competition Authority (the Authority), against Sky Italia S.r.l. (Sky); Reti Televisive Italiane S.p.A. (and its subsidiary Mediaset Premium S.p.A.) (RTI); the Italian Football League (Lega Calcio); and Infront Italy S.r.l.(Infront), concerning an alleged violation of Article 101 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union  (TFEU) on the sale of broadcasting rights of the Italian Premier League “Serie A” for the years 2015–2018. According to the TAR, the Authority failed to observe the mandatory time-limit to contest the alleged conduct. The TAR highlighted that the Authority erred in considering the alleged conduct as a market sharing agreement. Furthermore, the Authority also erred in considering the agreement as a restriction “by object.” In particular,, according to TAR, the Authority has not carried out a thorough analysis of the relevant market and has not followed the recent European case law, according to which “in order to determine whether an agreement between undertakings reveals a sufficient degree of harm that it may be considered a ‘restriction of competition by object’ within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU, regard must be had to the content of its provisions, its objectives and the economic and legal context of which it forms part” (see Court of Justice of the European Union, case C-373/14 P, Toshiba Corporation v European Commission, 20 January 2016).

The broadcasting rights for the Italian Premier League “Serie A” are allocated, according to Legislative Decree No. 9 of 9 January 2008, through a tender issued by the Lega Calcio. In the 2014 tender, regarding the broadcasting rights for the years 2015–2018, Sky submitted the best bids for the two most relevant lots (A and B). However, considering the conditional bids presented by RTI and the possible creation of a dominant position in the market, the Lega Calcio, advised also by Infront, decided to allocate the relevant lots between Sky (lot A) and RTI (lots B and D). Then, after having received the authorization of both the Authority and the Italian Communication Authority, RTI granted to Sky the sub license of lot D. However, on 13 May 2015, the Authority opened an investigation on the decision-making process for the allocation of the broadcasting rights, and with decision of 19 April 2016, fined RTI of € 51,4 million, Infront of € 9,04 million, Sky of € 4 million and the Lega Calcio of approximately € 2 million for alleged market sharing in breach of Article 101 TFEU.

Gabriele Giunta contributed to this post.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Gregory E. Heltzer

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

Ranked In Chambers USA 2022
US Leading Firm 2022