Apresentação

Este é um informativo diário que traz para o(a) leitor (a) notícias e casos de defesa da concorrência das principais jurisdições antitruste do mundo (CADE, FTC, Comissão Europeia, CMA etc).

Notícias

Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter Delivers Keynote at Open Markets Institute’s “Fixing the Information Crisis Before It’s Too Late (for Democracy)”

Thursday, June 27, 2024Share

Location

Washington, DC
United States

Thank you for the introduction, Kai. Thank you to the Open Markets Institute and The Guardian USfor organizing today’s event. I am happy to be here for this important conversation. I could not imagine a more important topic.

The free flow of information and the exchange of ideas is the lifeblood of our cultural lives and our democracy. Humans need connections to one another like they need air and water. And a democracy needs citizens to exchange information and ideas. That is what democracy is all about: competing ideas in a debate that plays out freely over time. With freedom of thought and expression, democracy thrives. In contrast, the first goal of the tyrant is to control thought and information.

That is why the Founders made freedom of speech the very first right protected in our Bill of Rights. They understood deeply and personally the threats that government could pose to the marketplace of ideas on which democracy depends.

Ben Franklin was not just a champion of a free press and free speech, but a journalist and publisher himself. He committed to that work because he believed in “the sacred liberty of the press” and “the liberty of discussing the propriety of public measures and political opinions.”[1] So the Constitution fervently protected the public from government control of the press and of speech.

In the modern era, there are new threats to the marketplace of ideas. The Founders could not have imagined private corporations with the power to shape, control, or stifle freedom of speech on a national scale. It was just inconceivable in an era when the town square was … a square in the middle of town.

The only electric bottleneck Ben Franklin ever encountered was tied between a kite and a key. He could not have imagined that one day that wire would carry every Federalist Paper, all of journalism, all debate, every kind of connection between citizens. 

If he had, Franklin would have immediately seen the threat we face today. If a single platform of 1’s and 0’s hosts the marketplace of ideas, whoever controls that platform controls our thoughts, and our democracy will not survive.

Today we are confronting that challenge. The rise of dominant platforms in the marketplace of ideas threatens journalism, the exchange of information, and the marketplace of ideas. Powerful corporations that stand between citizens and writers, musicians, artists, and journalists exert enormous control and influence.

This is a dynamic that is playing out in many different areas. I would like to talk today about journalism, publishing, and AI in particular. These are industries where dominant intermediaries act as gatekeepers to the information commons. And as gatekeepers, they have the ability to extract more than their fair share from both sides of the market.

But this is about so much more than the price or output of these products and services. What is at stake is speech itself. Private corporations decide what ideas are worthy, whose voices are amplified, and what messages are disseminated and to whom. What is at stake is the very way in which people gather information and make decisions, and the very existence of the people who live to share their ideas, thoughts, and creations.  

Franklin might have also seen the solution to this problem. In a world where information flows over cables between silicon chips, we need more than just the one strand he tied to his kite and key.

Competition between many platforms means a small number of dominant platforms do not have outsized power over speech. And when there are more competitors, journalists and content creators have more opportunities to bargain for the value of their content, while consumers have the ability to vote with their feet.

That is a world where private citizens can benefit from different viewpoints and make informed decisions about how they want to live their lives. Where competition among many online platforms flourishes, no one company can exercise control over the flow of information in our democracy.

In the absence of competition, there are few if any incentives to compete to offer solutions for common problems. But competition can constrain behavior and even facilitate market-based solutions—whether it be how to fairly compensate creators of content, or how to combat the spread of false information and harmful content online.

Today, I would like to talk about three areas where this dynamic is playing out.

1. Journalism

Journalism is under threat in large part due to consolidation in the advertising market.

The statistics are staggering. In 2023, an average of 2.5 newspapers closed each week.[2] Since 2005, the country has lost one-third of its newspapers.[3] And it has lost two-thirds of its newspaper journalists in that same period.[4]

This is in no small part due to the ripple effects from changes in how advertising works. Traditionally, news organizations have relied on subscriptions and advertising to fund their reporting and to pay their journalists. But with the rise of the Internet, readers increasingly turned to online aggregators for news.

Today, the majority of Americans prefer to get their news on a digital device, rather than from TV, radio, or print.[5] Americans now get their news from news websites, searches, and from social media.[6] Social media is especially prominent. According to a recent survey, about half of U.S. adult today get news from social media at least sometimes.[7]

This means that powerful platforms are acting as middlemen between newspapers and readers. Digital advertising dollars now go to these middlemen, rather than to the journalists and news organizations that do the reporting.

In turn, newspapers now depend on these platforms for the distribution of their content. They need the platforms to reach the readership, and they have little negotiating power. And without sufficient advertising revenue, independent journalism suffers.

Competition is a key piece of the puzzle toward a solution to these problems. Competition paves the way for innovation and the development of new business models and new economic relationships.

Inter-platform competition could shift the balance of power and create different bargaining dynamics for newspapers. Competition among digital advertisers can lead the way toward a fairer compensation structure for those who do the on-the-ground reporting and write the articles.

Again, what is at stake here is not just the price of the newspaper. It is about journalism itself. It is about whether our society can support the journalists that do the hard work of separating truth from falsehood to shed light on the most important issues of our day. Without the journalists who do this work, our democracy cannot thrive.

2. Publishing

The trend toward consolidation has threatened another industry necessary for ideas to flourish — publishing.

The Antitrust Division brought a successful challenge to halt the merger between Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster. These are two of the largest book publishers in the industry. The proposed merger would have consolidated the “big 5” publishers into the “big 4” — further tightening the oligopoly that authors faced.

But our challenge to that merger was not just based on a theory that the price of books would increase due to reduced competition. It was that the merger meant that authors would receive lower advances. That would not only harm authors, but ultimately, it could lead to fewer books and a diminished diversity of viewpoints as fewer authors would invest the time and effort to write the next best-seller.

Authors and books are more than just economic units. They are vital to the marketplace of ideas and the public discourse.

Our victory in that case protected the vital competition for books. It was a victory for authors, for readers, and for the free exchange of ideas.

3. Artificial Intelligence

Last but not least, let me turn to AI.

AI will reshape all of the information and content industries. It will change the way we consume our news. It will affect the way in which content is created. And it will change the way that we interact with information.

Without meaningful competition, the same threats that plague journalism will spread to all other content creation markets.

Generative AI leverages human creations. Journalists, authors, artists, musicians — all types of human creativity become inputs into large-scale AI models that can swallow up and regurgitate their work.

AI carries the potential to create dominant companies that can exploit monopsony power at levels we have never seen before — a dominant buyer for all of the world’s ideas.

But what incentives will there be to create if the ideas of our writers, actors, and entertainers, can simply be taken without just compensation and through the exercise of monopsony power? What incentives will there be for journalists to seek out the truth when their work is uncompensated?

What does it mean for our society if we cannot protect those who live to share the ideas and creativity with the world?

The future of free expression depends on how we answer these questions as a society. Our democratic values depend on our ability to save ideas. We must do all we can to promote competition and innovation in the industries necessary for ideas and democracy to flourish.

[1] Benjamin Franklin, An Account of the Supremest Court of Judicature in Pennsylvania, viz., The Court of the Press, The Founders’ Constitution, https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs16.html (emphasis and capitalization omitted).

[2] David Bauder, Decline in Local News Outlets is Accelerating Despite Efforts to Help, Associated Press (Nov. 16, 2023, 10:30 AM), https://apnews.com/article/local-newspapers-closing-jobs-3ad83659a6ee070ae3f39144dd840c1b.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] News Platform Fact Sheet, Pew Research Center (Nov. 15, 2023), https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/news-platform-fact-sheet.

[6] Id.

[7] Social Media and News Fact Sheet, Pew Research Center (Nov. 15, 2023), https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-media-and-news-fact-sheet.

FTC Announces Final Eyeglass Rule Implementing Updates to Promote Competition and Expand Consumer Choice

Prescribers will be required to request signed confirmation after providing prescriptions, helping to ensure consumers can shop around

June 27, 2024

Tags: 

• Consumer Protection
• Bureau of Consumer Protection
• Health Care
• Optometry
• Advertising and Marketing
• Advertising and Marketing Basics

Concluding a comprehensive multi-year review, the Federal Trade Commission today announced final updates to its Ophthalmic Practice Rules, known as the Eyeglass Rule aimed at promoting competition and consumer choice.

The updates are designed to increase compliance with the rule’s longstanding requirement that eye doctors (ophthalmologists and optometrists) provide patients with a free copy of their prescription immediately following a refractive eye exam. The revised rule requires that in certain circumstances, prescribers must request a patient’s signature confirming they received their prescription, and prescribers must keep a record of that confirmation for at least three years.

“For decades, the FTC’s Eyeglass Rule has promoted competition by ensuring that consumers can shop around for lower prices,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC’s updated rule will strengthen compliance and make this market more fair and competitive.”

Issued in 1978, the FTC’s Eyeglass Rule helps facilitate consumer choice and promote competition in the eyeglass market by requiring that prescribers automatically provide patients with a copy of their eyeglass prescription immediately after any eye exam that includes a vision test, also known as a refraction, even if the patient does not request the prescription.

Under the existing rule, prescribers cannot require that patients buy eyeglasses before providing them with a copy of their prescription, place a liability waiver on the prescription, require patients to sign a waiver in order to receive their prescription, or require that patients pay an additional fee in exchange for a copy of their prescription. Prescribers also cannot refuse to perform an eye exam unless the patient buys eyeglasses, contact lenses, or other ophthalmic goods from them.

Rule Review and Final Changes

Despite the rule’s longstanding existence, prescribers have not always complied with the automatic release requirement. In response to consumer complaints over the past several years, the FTC has sent warning letters to prescribers reminding them that they must provide patients with prescriptions at the end of an exam and cannot charge a fee or require eyeglass purchase for prescription release. But even so, surveys of consumers have repeatedly found that many consumers do not automatically receive their prescription following each refractive eye exam.

In December 2022, after receiving more than 800 public comments, the Commission proposed updating the rule to address the continued non-compliance. The Commission sought additional comment on the proposed changes and held a public workshop in May 2023.

The changes announced today require that prescribers, after providing the prescription, request that their patients sign a statement confirming they received their prescription and keep a record of such confirmation for at least three years. These new confirmation requirements—which mostly mirror those already in place for contact lens prescriptions—only apply to optometrists and ophthalmologists who have a financial interest in selling prescription eyewear.

Other changes to the rule:

• allows prescribers, with a patient’s verifiable affirmative consent, to provide the patient with a digital copy of a prescription in lieu of a paper copy; if the patient refuses the digital copy, the prescriber must provide a paper copy;
• explicitly specifies that, whether the patient consents to digital delivery or opts for a paper copy of their prescription, the prescription must be provided immediately after the examination is completed (not after the patient has been sold glasses, for instance). A patient must have their prescription before any offer to sell them glasses.
• clarifies that presentation of proof of insurance coverage shall be deemed to be a payment for the purpose of determining when a prescription must be provided.
• changes the term “eye examination” to “refractive eye examination” throughout the text and emphasizes the need for prescribers to educate consumers that there can be a difference between an eye health examination and a refractive eye examination. This is because the automatic release of prescriptions is only required following a refractive eye examination.

The Commission vote approving the final rule was 5-0, with Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter issuing a separate statement. It will be published in the Federal Register soon and will become effective 60 days after publication.

The primary staffer who worked to develop the final rule is Alysa Bernstein in the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

Information for Consumers and Businesses

The FTC has information to help consumers understand their rights under federal law. See: Buying Prescription Glasses or Contact Lenses: Your Rights. Information to help businesses comply with the rule also is available.

The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition and protect and educate consumers.  The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize. Learn more about consumer topics at consumer.ftc.gov, or report fraud, scams, and bad business practices at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. Follow the FTC on social media, read consumer alerts and the business blog, and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts.

Press Release Reference

FTC Sends 28 Warning Letters Regarding Agency’s Eyeglass Rule

Contact Information

Media Contact

Mitchell J. Katz 

Office of Public Affairs

202-326-2161

La CNMC aprueba con compromisos la creación de una empresa que combina los negocios de Arenal y Druni

28 Jun 2024 | Competencia Nota de prensa

• La operación afecta a la distribución minorista de perfumería y cosmética en España.
• Existen riesgos para la competencia en el municipio de Ponferrada porque la adquisición daría lugar a un monopolio en el mercado de distribución de productos de lujo. 
• En consecuencia, las partes se comprometen a desinvertir la tienda de Druni en Ponferrada.

La Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) ha aprobado con compromisos la creación de una empresa en participación que combina los negocios de Arenal y Druni. La operación afecta a los negocios minoristas de belleza y bienestar en España de Arenal y Druni y quedará controlada conjuntamente por Modelo Continente Hipermercados, S. A., sucursal España (MCH) y la familia Casp (Casp) (C/1456/24).

La operación afecta al mercado de distribución minorista de perfumería y cosmética, tanto en lo que respecta a productos de parafarmacia, como a productos de gran consumo y a productos de lujo. 

Obstáculos para la competencia

Durante el análisis en primera fase, la CNMC identificó y delimitó los problemas potenciales de competencia que podrían producirse en determinadas zonas si se autorizase la operación sin compromisos.

Aunque la operación implica solapamientos en 17 municipios, solo en el de Ponferrada se alcanza una cuota elevada. En particular, daría lugar a un monopolio en el mercado de distribución de productos de perfumería y cosmética de lujo en el municipio.

Compromisos propuestos 

Las empresas presentaron una serie de compromisos para eliminar los posibles riesgos para la competencia de la adquisición. El más importante es el de desinversión del establecimiento minorista de Druni en el municipio de Ponferrada. Se elimina así el solapamiento derivado de la operación y no se producirá un cambio en la estructura previa de este mercado. 

Adicionalmente, las partes han presentado ya a un potencial comprador que deberá comprometerse a explotar este local por un periodo mínimo de 3 años.

La CNMC considera que los compromisos son suficientes para solucionar los problemas que esta concentración supone para la competencia en los sectores afectados. 

Contenido relacionado:

• C/1456/24  Casp-MCH/Druni/Arenal 
• Blog (29/09/2023): En la CNMC vigilamos las concentraciones entre las empresas

Nota de prensa

Documento no oficial, destinado a los medios de comunicación, y que no vincula a la CNMC. Reproducción permitida solo si se cita la fuente.

La CNMC propone nuevas mejoras para las ayudas al transporte ferroviario de mercancías

28 Jun 2024 | Promoción de Competencia Nota de prensa

• Estas ayudas pretenden compensar a los operadores por los costes que les ocasionan las obras en la red ferroviaria.
• El proyecto de orden incluye algunas de las recomendaciones que la CNMC realizó sobre un borrador previo en 2022. 
• La CNMC recuerda que deben justificarse los cálculos de algunos coeficientes y la exclusión de ciertas maquinarias.

La Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) ha analizado de nuevo el proyecto de orden ministerial por la que se aprueban las bases reguladoras para la concesión de ayudas por perturbaciones extraordinarias de tráfico en el transporte ferroviario de mercancías (IPN/CNMC/013/24). 

Es la segunda vez que la CNMC revisa este futuro sistema de ayudas —realizó un informe en 2022 sobre un borrador previo—, debido a las nuevas modificaciones que ha llevado a cabo el Ministerio de Transportes en las bases reguladoras. 

El objetivo de esta norma es compensar a los operadores ferroviarios de mercancías por los altos costes que les ocasionan las obras en la vía. A cambio, deben mantener el transporte por ferrocarril en lugar de realizarlo por carretera, que es más contaminante.  

Análisis de la CNMC

La CNMC considera justificada la existencia de las ayudas que fomenten el uso del ferrocarril para el transporte de mercancías, ya que reducen las externalidades negativas generadas por el transporte por carretera (mayor contaminación, congestión de carreteras o accidentes de tráfico). 

Ahora bien, se recuerda que tanto el administrador de infraestructura ferroviaria como los operadores ferroviarios no deben ver reducidos sus incentivos para planificar y gestionar, de la forma más eficiente, las perturbaciones del tráfico ferroviario que se puedan producir.   

El borrador incluye algunas de las recomendaciones de la CNMC, pero todavía mantiene aspectos que pueden considerarse restrictivos: por ejemplo, cuando hay una incidencia y se paraliza el servicio, se mantiene la necesidad de reestablecerlo por el mismo itinerario. La CNMC recuerda que las recomendaciones recogidas en el informe de 2022 siguen, por tanto, vigentes.

Esta nueva versión del proyecto también plantea un procedimiento de concesión donde cada solicitud de ayuda se puntúa en función de su “mérito ambiental y socioeconómico”. De esta forma, la cuantía de cada ayuda se calcula a partir de una estimación de los “costes externos” (medioambientales y socioeconómicos) que se evitan al transportar mercancías por ferrocarril en lugar de por carretera.

Recomendaciones

Además de las recomendaciones ya mencionadas del anterior informe, la CNMC sugiere respecto a este nuevo borrador: 

• Justificar los cálculos realizados para obtener los coeficientes aplicados. El cálculo del importe de las ayudas no aparece explicado en el texto y depende, entre otros factores, de unos coeficientes de “mérito ambiental y socioeconómico”. 
• Mejorar la justificación de la exclusión de determinados modelos de locomotoras más antiguos y contaminantes, ya que puede provocar que el transporte se realice por carretera y que finalmente genere más contaminación y externalidades negativas. 
• Incluir los presupuestos estimados de las convocatorias que se celebrarán durante el periodo de vigencia del proyecto normativo. Así, las empresas podrán estimar con mayor antelación los recursos con los que contarán, y aumentar el efecto incentivador de las ayudas. 

La CNMC puede ser consultada por las Cámaras Legislativas, el Gobierno, los departamentos ministeriales, las Comunidades Autónomas, las Corporaciones locales, los Colegios Profesionales, las Cámaras de Comercio y las Organizaciones Empresariales y de Consumidores y Usuarios (de acuerdo con el artículo 5.2 de la Ley 3/2013, de 4 de junio, de creación de la Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia) o de oficio (de acuerdo con el artículo 5.1.h). 

Contenido relacionado:

• IPN/CNMC/013/24: Informe sobre el Proyecto de Orden Ministerial por la que se aprueban las bases reguladoras para la concesión de ayudas por perturbaciones extraordinarias de tráfico en el transporte ferroviario de mercancías
• IPN/CNMC/043/22: Informe sobre el Proyecto de Orden Ministerial por el que se aprueban las bases reguladoras para la concesión de ayudas por perturbaciones extraordinarias de tráfico en el transporte ferroviario de mercancías 
• Nota de prensa (05/01/2023): La CNMC propone mejorar las ayudas al transporte ferroviario de mercancías ante los sobrecostes ocasionados por obras en la vía

Nota de prensa

Documento no oficial, destinado a los medios de comunicación, y que no vincula a la CNMC. Reproducción permitida solo si se cita la fuente.

NUMÉRIQUE

Intelligence artificielle générative : l’Autorité rend son avis

Publié le 28 juin 2024

Depuis le lancement public de l’agent conversationnel ChatGPT, créé par l’entreprise OpenAI, en novembre 2022, l’intelligence artificielle (ci-après « IA ») générative a pris une place centrale dans le débat public et économique. Les questions qu’elle soulève vont de l’éthique au respect de la propriété intellectuelle ou encore à son impact sur le marché du travail et la productivité. Elle offre de nombreuses possibilités aux entreprises en termes, par exemple, de création de contenu, de conception graphique, de collaboration entre salariés ou de service aux clients.

Les bénéfices de l’IA générative ne se matérialiseront que si l’ensemble des ménages et des entreprises ont accès à une diversité de modèles adaptés à leurs cas d’usage. Il est dès lors essentiel que le fonctionnement concurrentiel du secteur soit favorable à l’innovation et permette la présence d’une multiplicité d’acteurs.

Dans ce contexte, l’Autorité de la concurrence a décidé, le 8 février 2024, de s’autosaisir pour avis sur le fonctionnement concurrentiel du secteur de l’IA générative et de lancer une consultation publique, lui permettant de collecter le point de vue d’une quarantaine d’acteurs et d’une dizaine d’associations d’acteurs.

Cet avis vise à fournir aux acteurs du secteur une analyse concurrentielle du fonctionnement de ce marché en plein développement. Il se concentre plus particulièrement sur les stratégies mises en place par les grands acteurs du numérique visant à consolider leur pouvoir de marché à l’amont de la chaîne de valeur de l’IA générative, c’est-à-dire dans la conception, l’entraînement et la spécialisation des grands modèles de langage ou à tirer parti de ce pouvoir de marché pour se développer dans ce secteur en plein essor. Ainsi, l’Autorité s’intéresse en particulier aux pratiques mises en œuvre par les acteurs déjà présents sur l’infrastructure d’informatique en nuage (cloud) et aux problématiques liées à l’accès à ces infrastructures, à la puissance de calcul, aux données et à une main d’œuvre qualifiée. Elle examine également les prises de participations et les partenariats des grands acteurs du numérique, notamment dans des entreprises innovantes spécialisées dans l’IA générative.

Elle n’aborde par conséquent qu’à titre incident les pratiques des acteurs à l’aval de la chaîne de valeur, c’est-à-dire au contact du consommateur final, et pas du tout les conséquences de l’IA pour le fonctionnement concurrentiel de l’ensemble de l’économie – question d’importance majeure et qui méritera des analyses ultérieures.

L’Autorité formule plusieurs séries de recommandations visant à favoriser la dynamique concurrentielle du secteur :

– à droit constant, rendre plus efficace le cadre réglementaire applicable au secteur

– en cas d’atteinte à la concurrence, mobiliser les outils rapides et efficaces du droit de la concurrence et du droit des pratiques restrictives de concurrence

– encourager l’innovation en assurant un meilleur accès à la puissance de calcul

– assurer un équilibre entre juste rémunération des ayants-droits et accès des développeurs de modèles aux données nécessaires pour innover

– renforcer la transparence sur les prises de participations des géants du numérique

COMMUNIQUÉ DE PRESSE DU 28 JUIN

Intelligence artificielle générative : l’Autorité rend son avis sur le fonctionnement concurrentiel du secteur de l’intelligence artificielle générative

Investigation into suspected anti-competitive conduct by Google

The CMA is investigating Google’s conduct in relation to Google’s distribution of apps on Android devices in the UK, in particular Google Play’s rules which oblige certain app developers to use Google Play’s own billing system for in-app purchases.From:Competition and Markets AuthorityPublished10 June 2022Last updated28 June 2024 — See all updatesCase type:CA98 and civil cartelsCase state:OpenMarket sector:CommunicationsOpened:10 June 2022

Contents

1. Case timetable
   1. Change log
2. Consultation on commitments
3. Case information
   1. Notes
4. Personal data
5. Contacts

Case timetable

Change log

The following changes have been made to the case timetable:

Consultation on commitments

19 April 2023: The CMA published a notice of intention to accept commitments offered by Google and invited representations from interested third parties on the proposed commitments. The CMA will consider any representations made in response to the consultation before making a final decision on whether or not to accept the proposed commitments.

• Consultation on proposed commitments regarding changes to Google Play’s rules to allow certain app developers to use alternative billing systems for in-app purchases (19.4.23)
• Press release: App developers on Google Play Store offered payment choices following CMA probe (19.4.23)

Case information

On 10 June 2022, the CMA launched an investigation under Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 into suspected breaches of competition law by Google. The investigation concerns Google’s distribution of apps on Android devices in the UK, in particular Google Play’s rules which oblige app developers offering digital content to use Google Play’s own billing system for in-app purchases.

Notes

• The investigation is under Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998.
• The CMA has not reached a view as to whether there is sufficient evidence of an infringement of competition law for it to issue a statement of objections to any party under investigation. Not all cases result in the CMA issuing a statement of objections.
• The CMA will consider any representations it receives before any decision is taken as to whether competition law has in fact been infringed.
• Further detail of the CMA’s procedures in Competition Act 1998 cases is available in CMA8.
• Changes to the timing of original entries in the case timetable will be made if the estimated timing changes.

Personal data

The CMA may collect, use and share personal data for its investigations, including investigations under the Competition Act 1998. This includes processing personal data for the purposes of the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. You can find more information about how the CMA handles personal information in the CMA’s Personal Information Charter.

Contacts

• Assistant Director: Amanda Adams, amanda.adams@cma.gov.uk
• Assistant Director: Nicholas Scola, Nicholas.Scola@cma.gov.uk
• Project Director: Geoff Steadman, Geoff.Steadman@cma.gov.uk
• Senior Responsible Officer: Ann Pope, ann.pope@cma.gov.uk

Published 10 June 2022
Last updated 28 June 2024 + show all updates

Contents

Related content

Collection

• Digital Markets Unit

Explore the topic

• Competition

Atos de concentração – Decisões

FTC

Kroger Company/Albertsons Companies, Inc., In the Matter of

The Federal Trade Commission sued to block the largest proposed supermarket merger in U.S. history—Kroger Company’s $24.6 billion acquisition of the Albertsons Companies, Inc.—alleging that the deal is anticompetitive.

Type of Action

Administrative

Last Updated

June 25, 2024

Docket Number

9428

Case Status

Pending

Comissão Europeia

APOLLO / PURMO

Merger

M.11581

Last decision date: 27.06.2024 Simplified procedure

VTTI / SHELL / DRAGON LNG

Merger

M.11572

Last decision date: 27.06.2024 Super simplified procedure

SGIF / EDF / PERFESCO

Merger

M.11525

Last decision date: 27.06.2024 Simplified procedure

Autorité de la Concurrence

24-A-05
relatif au fonctionnement concurrentiel du secteur de l’intelligence artificielle générative

Avis|

28 juin 2024

CMA

AlphaTheta / Serato merger inquiry

• The CMA is investigating the anticipated acquisition by AlphaTheta Corporation of Serato Audio Research Limited.
  • Updated: 28 June 2024

Atos de concentração – Ingressos

CADE

Ato de concentração 08700.004376/2024-93

Requerentes: SOE Operações Escolares S.A.; Colégio Ábaco Ltda.; Escola de Educação Infantil Aprendendo Brincando Ltda.; RGS Comércio de Livros e Serviços

Operação:

A operação consiste na aquisição, pela SOE Operações Escolares S.A. (“SOE”), da totalidade das
quotas representativas do capital social de Colégio Ábaco Ltda. (“Ábaco São Bernardo”), de
Escola de Educação Infantil Aprendendo Brincando Ltda. (“Escola Aprendendo Brincando”) e de
RGS Comério de Livros e Serviços (“RGS”) (“Sociedades-Alvo” e, em conjunto com SOE,
“Requerentes”), atualmente detidas por Cleide Saad (“Cleide”), Marcos Saad (“Marcos”),
Maurício Saad (“Maurício”), Marcelo Saad (“Marcelo”), Graciela Saad (“Graciela”), Rodolfo Saad
(“Rodolfo”) e Cristiane Marcil (“Cristiane”) (em conjunto, “Vendedores”), formalizada a partir da
celebração de Contrato de Compra e Venda de Quotas e Outras Avenças (“Contrato”)
(“Operação”).

Rito sumário

Edital

Ato de concentração 08700.004371/2024-61

Requerentes: Banco BTG Pactual S.A.; Ilha Pura 01 Empreendimento Imobiliário S.A.

Operação: A operação proposta consiste na aquisição, pelo Banco BTG Pactual S.A. (“BTG Pactual”
ou “Comprador”), da totalidade das ações de Ilha Pura 01 Empreendimento Imobiliário
S.A. (“Ilha Pura” ou “Empresa-Alvo” e, em conjunto com o Comprador, as “Partes”),
que, no momento anterior ao fechamento, serão detidas por Ilha Pura Empreendimentos
Imobiliários e Participações S.A. (“Holding Ilha Pura”) e Carvalho Hosken S.A.
Engenharia e Construções (“Carvalho Hosken” e, em conjunto com Holding Ilha Pura, as
“Vendedoras”) (a “Operação”).

Rito sumário

Edital

Ato de concentração 08700.004369/2024-91

Requerentes: NFE POWER SSLNG PARTICIPAÇÕES LTDA.; USINA TERMELÉTRICA DE LINS S.A.

Operação:

A operação proposta consiste na aquisição, pela NFE Power SSLNG Participações Ltda.
(“NFE” ou “Compradora”), da totalidade das ações de emissão da Usina Termelétrica de Lins S.A.
(“UTE Lins” ou “Sociedade-Alvo” e, em conjunto com a Compradora, “Requerentes”), detidas pela
Omega Engenharia Ltda., Omega Geração de Energia Elétrica Ltda. e Gilberto Bueno
(“Vendedores”) (a “Operação”).

Rito sumário

Edital