Insights & news

German Federal Cartel Office publishes paper on competition restraints in online sales

  • 21/12/2018
  • Articles

In October 2018, the German Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”) published its fourth paper in the series “Competition and Consumer Protection in the Digital Economy”. The paper assesses the legal status of online sales restrictions subsequent to the judgment of the ECJ in Coty (see VBB on Competition Law, Volume 2017, No. 12) and the judgment of the German Federal Court of Justice in Asics (see VBB on Competition Law, Volume 2018, No. 1). Overall, the FCO appears to favour a considerably narrower reading of the Coty judgment than the European Commission (as reflected in the Commission’s Competition policy brief of April 2018), and leaves open the possibility that market place bans might be considered as hardcore restrictions under the Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Regulation (“VABER”) taking into account specific market circumstances in Germany. The paper also expresses concerns over the development of “hybrid platforms”, and the risk that this might lead to the exclusion of independent dealers, a concentration of the market and a restriction of consumer choice.

The FCO starts by welcoming the recent enforcement activity of the European Commission in vertical price fixing cases involving internet sales.

Moving on to the two major platform cases, it considers that the judgment of the German Federal Court of Justice in Asics (which considered the prohibition of the use of price comparison sites in a selective distribution system to be a hardcore restriction that could not be block exempted under the VABER) can be distinguished from, and does not contradict, the judgment of the ECJ in Coty. In this regard, the FCO refers to the fact that Asics running shoes, in contrast to the Coty products, were not considered as luxury goods. Furthermore, it notes that Asics retailers were prohibited from using both price comparison sites and third party platforms with the consequence that, in contrast to the finding in Coty, consumers did not in practice have adequate access to the authorized dealers’ own online offer.

The FCO observes that the Coty judgment did not provide a definition of luxury goods. It takes the restrictive view that the ECJ’s legal assessment of the application of Article 101(1) TFEU cannot simply be assumed to apply to other (high-quality) branded goods.

The FCO advocates that brand image can be protected in a manner consistent with Article 101(1) TFEU by requiring distributors to have their own online shop on third party market places, instead of by prohibiting the use of third party market places altogether.

The FCO also revisits the ECJ’s finding that market place bans are not hardcore passive sales restrictions pursuant to Article 4(c) of the VABER. It expresses the view that, in Coty, the ECJ had mainly based its finding on the results of the European Commission’s E-commerce Sector Inquiry which indicated that, on average in the EU, distributors’ own online shops – rather than platforms – are, in practice, by far the main online distribution channel used by distributors.

The FCO points out that the situation in Germany is different and that the use of market places and price comparison sites is clearly more significant in Germany than on average in the EU. It goes on to suggest that it is unclear at what point general platform restrictions and other restrictions on online sales activities reduce the online visibility of dealers to such a degree as to constitute hardcore passive sales restrictions. The FCO also suggests it is unclear whether an overall assessment of the different restrictions is needed in order (presumably) to conclude on whether passive sales are restricted (the FCO seems to be pointing to the fact that, unlike in Asics, the only restriction imposed by Coty was a market place ban). 

In emphasising what it sees as the important open questions after Coty, the FCO appears to be advocating that market place bans may in certain circumstances be hardcore restrictions under the VABER, and that different conclusions may be justified by different market circumstances. This approach is difficult to square with the purpose of block exemptions, which is to provide a predictable and uniform safe harbour applicable across the EU, without the need to carry out the type of market analysis appropriate in the context of an individual assessment under Article 101 TFEU.

It is interesting to note that, in applying the criteria set out by the ECJ in Coty, earlier this year the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt (see VBB on Competition Law, Volume 2018, No. 8) already highlighted that the ECJ did not appear to have taken into consideration that, particularly in Germany, distribution via platforms plays a far more important role than in other EU Member States. It nonetheless found that the market place ban did not constitute a hardcore passive sales restriction and was exempted by the VABER.

Looking to the future, the FCO considers the question how to deal with hybrid platforms, i.e., platforms that act as an authorized dealer for manufacturers, on one hand, and as an intermediary for online dealers, on the other hand. The FCO highlights the strong market position of platforms based on increased network effects which can result in dealers being dependent on these platforms. It points to the risk that, with platforms cooperating with manufacturers, dealers might become subject to discrimination and squeezed out of the market. The FCO notes that its aim is to prevent e-commerce being concentrated in the hands of a few players, i.e., the manufacturers, some large dealers and even fewer leading platforms. In this respect, it is noteworthy that the European Commission is currently gathering information from market participants in relation to the dual nature of the Amazon sales platform.

Key contacts

Related practice areas

Related insights

Sign up for updates
    • 06/07/2020
    • Newsletters

    VBB on Competition Law, Volume 2020, No. 6

    The June 2020 issue of our newsletter, VBB on Competition Law, which covers major developments in competition law at both the European Union and Member State levels.

    Read more
    • 01/07/2020
    • Articles

    European Commission’s White Paper on Levelling the Playing Field as regards Foreign Subsidies

    Key Takeaway: The EU (and Member States) may be given new, far-reaching powers to tackle the perceived harmful effects of third-country subsidies benefitting businesses operating in the EU. Remedies could be imposed limiting participation in all sectors of the internal market, including prohibiting businesses from making subsidised acquisitions and participating in public procurement in the EU. On 17 June 2020, the European Commission (the “Commission”) published a White Paper on how to respond to third countries giving subsidies to companies active in the EU (“foreign subsidies”). In an effort to level the playing field, the Commission proposes new tools to address what it perceives as unfair competition from foreign players in the EU’s internal market. The Commission considers that existing tools, in the areas of notably trade defence, competition law and public procurement, are insufficient to avoid distortions resulting from foreign subsidies. The proposed new tool box fits within the EU’s new policy of “open strategic autonomy”. It signals a more pro-active approach on the part of the EU in responding to unfair and abusive practices distorting the EU internal market and undermining the level playing field.

    Read more
    • 01/07/2020
    • News

    Van Bael & Bellis welcomes Alex Stratakis as a Partner

    Van Bael & Bellis is pleased to announce that Alex Stratakis is joining the firm this week as a Partner. Based in London, and with almost 15 years of experience in all aspects of competition law, Alex will lead the UK Competition practice out of Van Bael & Bellis’ new London office, opening in September (subject to SRA approval). Alex’s practice covers predominantly UK, but also EU, Greek and Cypriot competition law, focusing on complex merger control, distribution, dominance and state aid. He has extensive experience successfully representing clients before the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the European Commission and various (non-UK) national competition authorities across the globe, as well as before European and national courts. He has also advised a number of companies on the implications of the UK’s Foreign Direct Investment Screening Regime. Alex’s practice covers a wide range of sectors, including life sciences (originators and medical device manufacturers), aviation, automotive, energy & mining, industrials, chemicals, luxury goods, telecoms, media, transport and infrastructure. Alex says “I am delighted to be re-joining Van Bael & Bellis as Partner to spearhead the enhancement of the firm’s UK capabilities together with a very gifted and experienced team of solicitors. Van Bael & Bellis’ stellar competition practice and unique market proposition needs no introduction; and I will be relying heavily on my colleagues to succeed together.” Philippe De Baere, managing partner, comments “The forthcoming opening of our London office is an important step in Van Bael & Bellis’ growth as a firm. To make this a success, the quality of our UK team will be essential. I am therefore extremely pleased that Alex decided to join us in this venture. Not only is he a leading UK competition lawyer, he also forms part of the Van Bael & Bellis family, having started his career with us in 2005. I am convinced that this unique combination will make him an effective leader of our new UK Competition practice.“ Alex Stratakis’ arrival means that Van Bael & Bellis’ Competition team now includes 15 partners and 7 counsel.

    Read more

Subscribe to our updates

Please select the practice areas you are interested in: *