PSR announces market reviews into scheme and processing fees and cross-border interchange fees

 

PSR announces market reviews into scheme and processing fees and cross-border interchange fees

 

The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) has published draft terms of reference for proposed market reviews into card scheme and processing fees (MR22/1.1) and UK-EEA consumer cross-border interchange fees (MR22/2.1).

The reviews will focus on Mastercard and Visa. The PSR has invited comments on both sets of draft terms of reference by 2 August 2022 and plans to issue final terms of reference in Autumn 2022.

The reviews have been launched against concerns about the increases in both categories of fees.  The PSR is seeking to understanding whether the markets connected with scheme and processing fees are working well.  Its reviews will examine the structure and types of scheme and processing fees and will build on the PSR’s market review into card-acquiring services

The PSR observes increases in cross-border interchange fees for some card transactions between the UK and the EEA where the cardholder is not present.  It finds that Visa and Mastercard have increased these fees five-fold since the UK’s departure from the EU.

https://www.psr.org.uk/news-updates/latest-news/news/psr-sets-out-the-details-for-its-work-on-card-fees/

Court of Justice upholds optical disks drives cartel fines but annuls decision in part

 

Court of Justice upholds optical disks drives cartel fines but annuls decision in part

The European Court of Justice has ruled on four separate appeals by Sony, Sony Optiaric, Quanta Storage, and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology against the General Court judgments that upheld the European Commission's 2015 decision and fines imposed in relation to the optical disk drive cartel.

The appeals raise similar points of legal principle.

The Court of Justice set aside all of the judgments of the General Court.  It partially annulled the Commission’s decision finding that the General Court was incorrect to conclude that the Commission has not breached the companies’ rights of defence.  The Court was not satisfied that the Commission had properly stated its reasons for the decision that the parties had participated in a single and continuous infringement.

However the Court upheld the fines imposed by the Commission as none of the elements raised by the parties as to their participation in the cartel, or public policy, justified it in exercising the discretion to reduce the amount of the penalty.

The judgment is a reminder that infringements against companies should be set out in the statement objections in order to protect the rights of the defence.

Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics v Commission, Sony Optiarc and Sony Optiarc America v Commission, Quanta Storage, Inc v Commission and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp v Commission (Cases C‑697/19 P to C‑700/19 P) (T-762/15)

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2022-06/cp220101en.pdf

Competition Appeal Tribunal grants one of two collective proceedings orders in trucks cartel damages case

 

Competition Appeal Tribunal grants one of two collective proceedings orders in trucks cartel damages case

 

In a much awaited judgment, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has granted one and refused a second collective proceedings order (CPO) application in relation to the two collective damages actions brought against truck manufacturers.

The claims were brought by UK Trucks Claim Limited (UKTC) and Road Haulage Association Limited (RHA), under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998, as follow on actions arising from the European Commission’s truck cartel decision issued in July 2016.

The UKTC application was for an opt-out claim, with a class size of approximately 38,000. The RHA application was for an opt-in claim, with a class size of approximately 17,500.

It was noted by the CAT that the UKTC claim would capture more claims by small operators.

The CAT identified a number of concerns relating to the identification of common issues but was satisfied that there was overarching wrongdoing and all potential class members had purchased or leased a new or used truck.

The CAT refused to accept that the EURO emissions part of the UKTC claim was a common issue and found that this element was not suitable for opt-out collective proceedings.  Trucks registered outside the UK were excluded from the class.  It also ruled that compound interest was unsuitable for determination as a common issue in opt-out collective proceedings.

The CAT found that both applications were suitable but it could not approve the two applications.  Even though there was no legislative presumption in favour of opt-in or opt-out proceedings, the CAT granted the RHA application as it had the advantage of being opt-in.  In the CAT’s view, opt-in proceedings had the benefit of giving access to a wider dataset, despite presenting a greater risk to litigation funding.

The CAT’s ruling is a welcome decision in bringing clarity to the status of these two sets of claims.  It will no doubt provide further momentum for the growth of collective competition proceedings in England and Wales.

UK Trucks Claim Limited v Stellantis N.V. (formerly Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.) and others and Road Haulage Association Limited v Man SE and others [2022] CAT 25

Marcus Bokkerink is confirmed as preferred candidate for CMA Chair

 

 

 

 

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has announced that the preferred candidate for Chair of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is Marcus Bokkerink.

 

Mr Bokkerink is a former Managing Director and Senior Partner of Boston Consulting Group (BCG).

Since is retirement in 2020 he has focused on investing in start-up and challenger businesses.

He has also worked as a Senior Advisor to BCG and a strategic advisor to a small number of corporates.

He is chair of the Development Board of Pembroke College, Cambridge.

The appointment sits well with the CMA’s priorities for enforcement in cases involving innovation and hi-tech.  For example, the CMA has ongoing investigations into Google, Meta and Apple.  It also has two market studies in this area examining music streaming and mobile ecosystems in anticipation of tougher powers from the government to support the Digital Markets Unit which currently exists in a shadow form.

Having a chair with business experience should inspire confidence amongst businesses and consumers.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/marcus-bokkerink-confirmed-as-the-preferred-candidate-for-chair-of-the-competition-and-markets-authority