Saturday, 12 November 2022

CAT adds season ticket holders to train operators collective action

 

CAT adds season ticket holders to train operators collective action

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has granted a request by Justin Gutmann to include season ticket holders in his £93 million collective action against two train operators -  South Western Railway and London & South Eastern Railway - for allegedly overcharging commuters travelling outside of London.

The CAT rejected the defendants’ objections to the amendment and warned against over-complicating the class definition in an attempt to try to exclude certain categories of case where loss had been incurred.

The CAT noted that, in view of the wide range of tickets and the wide variety of individual circumstances in which rail tickets are purchased, it would not be productive to seek more elaborate refinement of the class definition at this stage.

Justin Gutmann v London & South Eastern Railway Limited and Justin Gutmann v First MTR South Western Trains Limited and Stagecoach South Western Trains Limited, [2022] CAT 49, ruling on amendment, 10 November 2022

Tuesday, 1 November 2022

Permission to appeal partially granted in trucks cartel litigation

 

Permission to appeal partially granted in trucks cartel litigation

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has granted limited permissions to appeal in challenges brought in the UK trucks cartel litigation (UK Trucks Claim Limited v Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and Others and Road Haulage Association Limited v Man SE and others).

In June 2022 the CAT granted and refused collective proceedings orders (CPO) in the claims, under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998.

The litigation follows on from the European Commission’s 2016 trucks cartel decision.

The CAT previously ruled that both the UK Trucks Claim (UKTC) and Road Haulage Association (RHA) claims were suitable for collective proceedings, but the RHA opt-in claim was more practical despite more risks from a funding perspective.

UKTC sought permission to appeal the ruling on the basis that the CAT had incorrectly refused the opt-out application or should have accepted it to the extent not covered by the RHA opt-in application.

While the CAT dismissed the majority of the UKTC appeal grounds, it granted permission to appeal based on the assessment of the inclusion of new and used trucks in the RHA class definition, and the argument that if the RHA CPO had been confined to used trucks only, it should be considered whether the UKTC application should be allowed.

The CAT did not say that it had erred in its conclusion but reflected that it had considered multiple applications.  At this relatively new time in the development of the UK class action regime, the CAT considered this merits review by the Court of Appeal.

The CAT also granted defendants MAN and DAF permission to appeal against the certification decision on one limited ground relating to the suitability of the RHA’s claim to proceed on a collective basis.

As a result, the CAT stayed the opt-in collective damages claim to allow the competing claimant group to challenge its certification decision.

UK Trucks Claim Limited v Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and others and DAF Trucks NV and others and Road Haulage Association Limited v MAN SE and others and Daimler AG [2022] CAT 48, ruling (permission to appeal)

Saturday, 29 October 2022

Twin antitrust probes into Google’s Play Store

 

Twin antitrust probes into Google’s Play Store

Google has confirmed that the European Commission is investigating its Play Store in an abuse of dominance inquiry.

This confirmation was made in a filing to the US Securities and Exchange Commission. It comes on the heels of the launch by the UK Competition and Markets Authority of a similar probe in June.  The European Commission has not yet confirmed its investigation at this stage, although it is usual for it to announce the opening of a formal investigation.

It appears that the Commission’s investigations relates to Google’s requirement that app developers use its own payment system or they will be removed from the App Store.  A similar theory of harm runs through the statement of objections that the Commission sent to Apple in 2021 concerning the music streaming market.

The CMA’s latest probe into Google’s Play Store is accompanied by its final report in its mobile ecosystem market study.  This found that Apple and Google have a ‘stranglehold’ over certain markets due to their effective duopoly in mobile ecosystems.

Google has also confirmed that it is bringing an appeal to the European Court of Justice against the General Court’s finding that upheld the major part of the Commission’s Google Android decision.

Google also confirmed in its regulatory filing that it is appealing to the European Court of Justice against the General Court’s ruling last month that largely upheld the commission’s Google Android decision.

https://app.quotemedia.com/data/downloadFiling?webmasterId=90423&ref=117011882&type=HTML&symbol=GOOGL&companyName=Alphabet+Inc.&formType=10-Q&formDescription=General+form+for+quarterly+reports+under+Section+13+or+15%28d%29&dateFiled=2022-10-26&CK=1652044

Tuesday, 11 October 2022

European Commission issues statement of objections in abusive patent filing case

 

European Commission issues statement of objections in abusive patent filing case

The European Commission has sent a statement of objections to Teva alleging that it has abused its dominant position contrary to Article 102 TFEU through conduct that is intended to block or delay competition with its multiple sclerosis drug, Copaxone.

The Commission has made a provisional finding that Teva engaged in abusive practices in the markets for glatiramer acetate which is the active ingredient in Copaxone, in Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain.

Teva's basic patent for glatiramer acetate expired in 2015.  The Commission contends that Teva has artificially extended patent protection for Copaxone by strategically filing and withdrawing secondary patent applications (for divisional patents).  According to the Commission this caused competitors to have to bring new legal challenges which delayed their market entry with an alternative.

The exclusionary effect of (patent) filing strategies on competition between incumbents and new entrants was examined in detail by the Commission as early as 2008 in its Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry.  It is not surprising that owners of patents develop commercial strategies that are aimed at and have the effect of extending the breadth and duration of their IPR protection which affects the ability of new entrants to enter and expand on the market. The question is whether this is abusive.

A dominant company may not use regulatory procedures in such a way as to prevent or make more difficult entry of competition in a market, unless it can as an undertaking engaged in competition on the merits, rely on grounds relating to the defence of legitimate interests or objective justification.

The case has some parallels with the Commission’s finding that AstraZeneca infringed Article 102 TFEU through two practices: (1) making misleading representations before the national patent offices and before the national courts in order to obtain supplementary protection certificates for its Losec drug (which extend patent protection); and (2) filing requests for deregistration of marketing authorisations combined with the withdrawal from the market of Losec capsules with the intent of blocking the entry of generic products or preventing parallel trading. C-457/10 P AstraZeneca v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2012:770

The Teva case represents an uptick in the Commission’s enforcement strategy against abusive conduct in the context regulatory procedures in the pharma sector.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_6062

 

 

Saturday, 8 October 2022

Ofcom launches market study into cloud services

 

Ofcom launches market study into cloud services

Ofcom has launched a market study into the provision of cloud services in the UK.

Cloud services are services related to the provision of remote access to computing resources (compute, storage and networking).

The main suppliers of cloud services in the UK are Amazon Web Services, Microsoft and Google (known and ‘the hyperscalers’).

Cloud services are important to businesses across the economy, especially in telecoms and broadcasting.  Ofcom wants to examine whether there is any feature of the market that could limit competition and harm consumers and intends to focus on the ‘public cloud’.  It will consider whether any feature of the market might favour the hyperscalers and make it more difficult for others to enter and expand.

Ofcom seeks comments including on whether it should make a market investigation reference to the Competition and Markets Authority, by 3 November 2022.

Ofcom expects to publish an interim report for consultation in around six months’ time.

Ofcom says that it is doing this as part of a new programme of work to ensure that digital communications markets are working well for people and businesses in the UK.

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-3/cloud-services-market-study

Friday, 30 September 2022

EU Guidelines on the application of competition law in the gig economy

 

EU Guidelines on the application of competition law in the gig economy

The European Commission has set out Guidelines on the application of EU competition law to collective agreements. The Guidelines concern the conditions of solo self-employed persons.

Collective bargaining between employees and employers is outside the scope of EU competition law.

However, the self-employed are considered to be "undertakings" under EU law and an agreement between them risks being in breach of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The Commission's Guidelines set out the circumstances in which solo self-employed are comparable to workers and therefore not subject to Article 101 of the TFEU.

The Commission also sets out the conditions where it will not intervene against collective agreements that aim to correct a clear imbalance in the bargaining power of solo self-employed persons and the other contracting party and which, by their nature and purpose, aim to improve working conditions.

The Commission has stated that it renew its guidelines on collective agreements for the self-employed by 2030.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_5796

Tuesday, 6 September 2022

Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum

 

Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published terms of reference of the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF).

The DRCF was launched by the CMA, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and Ofcom in July 2020. The Financial Conduct Authority joined in April 2021.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has written to the DCRF setting out the role of the DRCF in delivering the government's vision of a strategic, pro-innovation approach to digital regulation.

The terms of reference of the DRCF set out that it has the goal of promoting greater coherence, working collaboratively to jointly address complex problems, and working together to build capabilities. It is a voluntary cooperation forum to facilitate engagement between the members and does not provide formal advice or direction to its members.

The DCRF is one of a growing number of bodies and initiatives set up to promote wider cross-sector engagement on competition and economic issues in a digital landscape. Digital transformation is supporting all sectors of the economy

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has identified how collaborative regulation represents a fundamental change in the way that governments develop regulatory frameworks and rules.

In 2016 at the General Symposium for Regulators ITU presented the concept of collaborative or fifth generation (G5) regulation under the generations of regulation model

G5 involves a new system of cross-sectoral regulation involving harmonised rules with holistic and collaborative approaches as well as high level principles. A collaborative approach recognises the interplay between digital infrastructure, services and content across industries. While there are some ‘quick wins’ that can be achieved with some ease, other institutional constraints will need to be considered and demand more reflection and time.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/drcf-terms-of-reference/terms-of-reference