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
Commission opens investigation into possible anticompetitive agreements in the online food delivery sector
Page contents
The European Commission has opened a formal antitrust investigation to assess whether Delivery Hero and Glovo have breached EU competition rules by participating in a cartel in the sector of online ordering and delivery of food, grocery and other daily consumer goods in the European Economic Area (‘EEA’).
Delivery Hero and Glovo are two of the largest food delivery companies in Europe. From July 2018, Delivery Hero held a minority share in Glovo, and in July 2022 it acquired its sole control.
The Commission is concerned that, before the takeover, Delivery Hero and Glovo may have allocated geographic markets and shared commercially sensitive information (e.g., on commercial strategies, prices, capacity, costs, product characteristics). The Commission is also concerned that the companies may have agreed not to poach each other’s employees. These practices could have been facilitated by Delivery Hero’s minority share in Glovo.
If proven, the companies’ behaviour may breach EU competition rules that prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices(Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement).
The Commission will now carry out its in-depth investigation as a matter of priority. The opening of a formal investigation does not prejudge its outcome.
Background
In June 2022 and November 2023, the Commission carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of Delivery Hero and Glovo, as part of its own-initiative inquiry into possible collusion in the food delivery sector.
Delivery Hero, headquartered in Germany, is a company active in the food ordering and delivery business. It is currently present in more than 70 countries worldwide and partners with more than 500,000 restaurants. Delivery Hero is listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange
Glovo, headquartered in Spain, is a company active in the food ordering and delivery business. It is currently present in more than 1,300 cities in 25 countries across the globe. In July 2022, Delivery Hero acquired the majority of shares in Glovo, and Glovo became Delivery Hero’s subsidiary.
Today’s investigation is part of the Commission’s efforts to ensure that online food delivery and the groceries sector deliver choice and reasonable prices to consumers. In a young and dynamic market such as the one at stake, anticompetitive agreements and restrictive business practices, including cartels through market allocation, may lead to hidden market consolidation, with potential negative effects on competition.
This investigation is also part of the Commission’s efforts to ensure a fair labour market where employers do not collude to limit the number and quality of opportunities for workers but compete for talents. It is the first investigation on no-poach agreements formally initiated by the Commission.
This investigation is also the first by the Commission into anti-competitive agreements that may have occurred in the context of a minority shareholding by one operator in a competitor.
Article 101 TFEU prohibits agreements and concerted practices which may affect trade and prevent or restrict competition. The implementation of this provision is defined in Regulation No 1/2003. Article 101 TFEU can also be applied by national competition authorities.
Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003 provides that the opening of proceedings by the Commission relieves the competition authorities of the Member States of their competence to also apply EU competition rules to the practices concerned. Article 16(1) further provides that national courts must avoid adopting decisions that would conflict with a decision contemplated by the Commission in proceedings it has initiated. The Commission has informed the companies and the competition authorities of the Member States that it has opened proceedings in this case.
There is no legal deadline for bringing an antitrust investigation to an end. The duration of an antitrust investigation depends on a number of factors, including the complexity of the case, the extent to which the companies concerned cooperate with the Commission and the exercise of the rights of defence.
For more information on the Commission’s actions against cartels, including on how individuals or companies can report suspicious cartel behaviour, see the Commission’s dedicated cartels website. The website also provides statistics on cartel enforcement. A periodic compilation of antitrust and cartel news is available in the Competition Weekly News Summary.
More information on the investigation will be available on the Commission’s competition website, in the public case register under the case number AT.40795.
Commission accepts commitments by Vifor to address possible anticompetitive disparagement of iron medicine
Page contents
The European Commission has made commitments offered by Vifor legally binding under EU antitrust rules. The commitments address the Commission’s competition concerns relating to Vifor’s potential disparagement of Monofer, the closest – and potentially only – competitor of Vifor’s flagship intravenous iron medicine in Europe, Ferinject.
The Commission’s preliminary concerns
The Commission preliminarily found that Vifor may be dominant in several national markets for the provision of intravenous iron medicines, namely in Austria, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands.
The Commission is concerned that for many years, Vifor may have restricted competition in the above markets for intravenous iron treatment by disseminating potentially misleading information about the safety of Monofer, an iron deficiency treatment marketed by Vifor’s closest competitor in Europe, Pharmacosmos. Vifor’s messages, primarily targeting healthcare professionals, may have unduly hindered Monofer’s uptake in the European Economic Area (‘EEA’). They appear to be aimed at shielding Vifor’s own blockbuster high-dose intravenous iron treatment medicine, Ferinject, from competition.
The Commission’s preliminary view is that Vifor’s conduct may have restricted competition in the market for intravenous iron treatment and potentially amount to an abuse of dominant position, in breach of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’).
The commitments
To address the Commission’s preliminary concerns, Vifor offered certain commitments. Between 22 April and 22 May 2024, the Commission market tested those commitments and consulted all interested third parties to verify whether the commitments would remove its competition concerns. In light of the outcome of this market test, Vifor adjusted the initially proposed commitments and offered the following:
- To launch a comprehensive and multi-channel communication campaign to rectify and undo the effects of the potentially misleading messages previously disseminated by Vifor regarding the safety of Monofer. In particular, Vifor commits to: (i) disseminate via email, mail and in-person meetings a succinct and factual clarificatory communication to a significant number of healthcare professionals in the nine Member States where the Commission preliminarily found Vifor may be dominant; (ii) to publish such communication prominently on its website; (iii) to publish such communication in leading medical journals in each of the Member States concerned; and (iv) to allow third parties, including Pharmacosmos, to use such communication when contacting healthcare professionals.
- Not to engage in external promotional and medical communications, in writing or orally, about Monofer‘s safety profile using information that is neither based on Monofer‘s label nor derived from clinical trials specifically designed to compare Ferinject and Monofer across the entire EEA.
- To implement a number of measures and safeguards to ensure compliance, including internal mechanisms to ensure that all relevant external promotional and medical communications as well as internal training materials are in line with the commitments prior to their use, as well as annual internal trainings of staff and a system of certification of compliance.
The Commission concluded that Vifor’s final commitments would address its competition concerns over Vifor’s potential disparagement of Monofer. It therefore decided to make them legally binding on Vifor.
The implementation of the commitments offered by Vifor will be monitored by a monitoring trustee appointed by Vifor and will last for a period of 10 years.
Background
Iron helps producing healthy red blood cells that move oxygen across the body. Iron deficiency is quite common, especially among women and persons suffering from chronic inflammatory diseases, cancers and blood losses (for example, after an accident or during surgery). In severe cases, iron deficiency can cause serious complications, such as heart failures, lung problems, pregnancy complications, as well as poor cognitive and motor development in children. It is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide.
Vifor Pharma‘s Ferinject and Pharmacosmos’ Monofer high-dose intravenous iron medicines are indicated for the treatment of iron deficiency when, for instance, oral preparations are ineffective or cannot be used.
Vifor is a global pharmaceutical company part of the biotechnology group CSL that develops, manufactures and markets worldwide pharmaceutical products to treat iron deficiency, nephrology and cardio-renal therapies. Pharmacosmos, a Danish family-owned specialist pharmaceutical company, focuses on the treatment of iron deficiency conditions.
The Commission opened a formal antitrust investigation into Vifor’s behaviour in June 2022, following a complaint filed with the Commission by Pharmacosmos. In February 2024, Vifor and Pharmacosmos reached a confidential commercial settlement agreement on this matter, which was taken into consideration by the Commission in its decision to explore the commitments procedure in this case. In April 2024, the Commission adopted a Preliminary Assessment summarising the main facts of the case and identifying the preliminary competition concerns.
Article 102 of the TFEU, which can also be applied by the national competition authorities, prohibits the abuse of a dominant position that may affect trade within the EU and prevent or restrict competition. The implementation of this provision is defined in Regulation No 1/2003.
Article 9(1) of Regulation 1/2003 enables companies investigated by the Commission to offer commitments in order to meet the Commission’s concerns and empowers the Commission to adopt a decision to make such commitments binding on the companies. Article 27(4) of Regulation 1/2003 requires that before adopting such decision the Commission shall provide interested third parties with an opportunity to comment on the offered commitments.
If the market test indicates that the commitments are a satisfactory way of addressing the Commission’s competition concerns, the Commission may adopt a decision making the commitments legally binding on the company concerned. Such a decision would not conclude that there is an infringement of EU antitrust rules but would legally bind the company to comply with the commitments it has offered.
If the company concerned does not honour such commitments, the Commission may impose a fine of up to 10% of its total annual turnover, without having to find an infringement of EU antitrust rules, or a periodic penalty payment of 5% per day of its daily turnover for every day of non-compliance.
This is the Commission’s second investigation into potential abuses relating to exclusionary disparagement of competing products in the pharmaceutical industry. In October 2022, the Commission sent a Statement of Objections to Teva over misuse of the patent system and disparagement of a competing multiple sclerosis medicine with a view to hinder its market entry and uptake.
For More Information
More information, including the full text of today’s decision and the full version of the commitments will be available on the Commission’s competition website, in the public case register under the case number AT.40577.
Leaders of Justice Department, Federal Trade Commission, European Commission and U.K. Competition and Markets Authority Issue Joint Statement on AI Competition
Tuesday, July 23, 2024Share
For Immediate Release
Office of Public Affairs
Today, Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, Chair Lina M. Khan of the Federal Trade Commission, Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager of the European Commission and Chief Executive Sarah Cardell of the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority issued a joint statement on competition in generative AI foundation models and AI products.
Through this joint statement, the four antitrust enforcers pledged to use their available powers to promote effective competition in AI to ensure the public reaps the full benefits of these technologies. The statement is available at www.justice.gov/atr/media/1361306/dl?inline.
Updated July 23, 2024
FTC, DOJ, and International Enforcers Issue Joint Statement on AI Competition Issues
Tags:
- Competition
- Office of International Affairs
- Bureau of Competition
- dual enforcement/DOJ
- Technology
- Artificial Intelligence
Today, FTC Chair Lina M. Khan, alongside international antitrust enforcers and the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, issued a statement affirming a commitment to protecting competition across the artificial intelligence (AI) ecosystem to ensure effective competition that provides fair and honest treatment for both consumers and businesses.
Jonathan Kanter, Assistant Attorney General with the U.S. Department of Justice; Sarah Cardell, Chief Executive Officer of the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority; and Margrethe Vestager, Executive Vice-President and Competition Commissioner for the European Commission, joined Chair Khan in the joint statement outlining AI competition risks, as well as principles that can help protect competition in the AI ecosystem.
The joint statement notes that while AI has the potential to become one of the most significant technological developments of the past couple of decades, it also raises competition risks that may prevent the full benefits of AI from being realized. All four antitrust enforcers pledged in the joint statement to remain vigilant for potential competition issues and expressed their determination to use available powers to safeguard against tactics that would undermine fair competition or lead to unfair or deceptive practices in the AI ecosystem.
To assess competition risks to AI, the joint statement stressed the importance of focusing on how emerging AI business models drive incentives, and ultimately behavior. Competition questions in AI will be fact-specific but several common principles—fair dealing, interoperability, and choice—will generally help enable competition and foster innovation, as outlined in the joint statement. While potential harms may be felt across borders, the joint statement makes it clear that U.S. decision-making will always remain independent and sovereign. The FTC along with DOJ and CMA also have a consumer protection mission and noted the need to continue to monitor potential harms to consumers that may stem from the use and application of AI.
The Federal Trade Commission works with counterpart agencies to promote sound antitrust, consumer protection, and data privacy enforcement and policy. The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize. For the latest news and resources, follow the FTC on social media, subscribe to press releases and subscribe to the FTC International Monthly.
La CNMC investiga al grupo Apple por posibles prácticas anticompetitivas relacionadas con la distribución de aplicaciones en sus dispositivos
24 Jul 2024 | Competencia Nota de prensa
- Podría estar imponiendo condiciones comerciales inequitativas a los desarrolladores que utilizan su tienda de aplicaciones (Apple App Store).
- A través de ella, los desarrolladores distribuyen sus aplicaciones a los usuarios de Apple.
- Las conductas podrían constituir un abuso de posición de dominio prohibido por el artículo 2 de la Ley de Defensa de la Competencia y 102 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea.
La Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) investiga a Apple Distribution International Ltd. y a Apple INC. (Apple) por supuestas conductas contrarias al artículo 2 de la Ley 15/2007, de 3 de julio, de Defensa de la Competencia (LDC) y al 102 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea (TFUE). (S/0005/24)
En concreto, Apple podría estar llevando a cabo prácticas anticompetitivas consistentes en imponer condiciones comerciales inequitativas a los desarrolladores que utilizan las tiendas de aplicaciones del grupo Apple (Apple App Store) para distribuir aplicaciones a los usuarios de productos de dicha empresa.
La investigación se inició de oficio, dada la relevancia que está cobrando en España la actividad económica que se lleva a cabo en las tiendas de aplicaciones.
En caso de confirmarse, las conductas podrían constituir un abuso de posición de dominio prohibido por el artículo 2 de la LDC y 102 del TFUE.
Estas prácticas podrían ser consideradas como una infracción muy grave de la LDC, que puede conllevar multas de hasta el 10 % del volumen de negocio total mundial de las empresas infractoras en el ejercicio anterior al de imposición de la multa.
La incoación de este expediente no prejuzga el resultado final de la investigación. Se abre ahora un periodo máximo de 24 meses para la instrucción del expediente y para su resolución por la CNMC.
Contenido relacionado:
- S/0005/24: Apple App Store
Documento no oficial, destinado a los medios de comunicación, y que no vincula a la CNMC. Reproducción permitida solo si se cita la fuente.
ACCC welcomes start of consultation on draft merger reform laws
Date
24 July 2024
Topics
The ACCC has welcomed the start of consultation by the Government on draft legislation for proposed reforms to Australia’s merger laws.
ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said the consultation is a key step in the process of developing the law that will ensure the reforms achieve their intended objectives.
“The reforms are important to achieve a simplified merger control framework that prevents harmful anti-competitive transactions and benefits Australian consumers and businesses of all sizes,” Ms Cass Gottlieb said.
“We welcome the opportunity the Government has provided for consultation with the wider community to ensure these reforms achieve their intended policy objectives.”
“Simplification is one of the key aims the Treasurer highlighted in designing the new merger reform. We are keen to ensure the new framework does not add complexity,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
The Government has also advised that it will consult separately on the notification thresholds that will decide which mergers need to be notified to the ACCC.
“We note having the right thresholds for proposed mergers to be reviewed by the ACCC will be key to the effectiveness of the proposed new regime and its ability to achieve the Government’s policy objectives of preventing mergers that pose a risk to competition, consumers and the economy,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
“The new merger regime needs to strike the right balance between ensuring that potentially anti-competitive mergers are scrutinised and where necessary prevented, while minimising regulatory burden for acquisitions that do not have anti-competitive effects.”
The ACCC has previously highlighted research by the Treasury’s competition taskforce that an estimated 1000-1500 mergers occur in Australia each year. However, only about 330 are notified to the ACCC under the existing voluntary merger regime.
“The new merger regime must address the deficiencies of current merger laws in allowing too many mergers to escape the competition regulator’s scrutiny,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb also today welcomed the Treasurer’s appointment of Ms Andrea Gomes da Silva as an independent expert adviser to the ACCC and Treasury on the implementation of the government’s planned merger law reform.
“Ms Gomes da Silva’s expertise and independent views will provide valuable insights on important policy design and implementation issues relating to the reforms,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
“Ms Gomes da Silva’s advice will assist Australia transition to the new merger control regime, in line with international best practice.”
“We look forward to drawing on Ms Gomes da Silva’s international perspective and her experiences, including during her leadership role at the UK competition regulator during a time of complex and significant change,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
The ACCC will also renew and expand its Performance Consultative Committee to advise on the ACCC’s merger review functions as well as the broad range of the ACCC’s responsibilities.
“Our Performance Consultative Committee will consist of a range of stakeholders including consumer, business, and legal representatives. The Committee will provide feedback on ACCC initiatives and a forum for exchange of perspectives on key issues,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
The membership of the refreshed ACCC Performance Consultative Committee will be announced in due course.
Release number
90/24
General enquiries
Contact us to report an issue or make an enquiry.
Media enquiries
Media Team – 1300 138 917, media@accc.gov.au
Joint Statement on competition in generative AI foundation models and AI products
Joint statement between the competition authorities of the United Kingdom, European Union and the United States of America on competition in generative AI foundation models and AI products.
From: Competition and Markets Authority
Published 23 July 2024
Documents
Joint statement on competition in generative AI foundation models and AI products
HTML
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
July 22, 2024
Docket Number
9428
Case Status
Pending
Tapestry, Inc./Capri Holdings Limited, In the Matter of
Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
July 22, 2024
FTC Matter/File Number
231 0133
Docket Number
9429
Case Status
Pending
Comissão Europeia
KIWA / ADESSO / JV
Merger
Last decision date 23.07.2024 Super simplified procedure
LGP / FRANCISCO PARTNERS / REDSAIL
Merger
Last decision date: 22.07.2024 Super simplified procedure
TRAFIGURA / VILMA OIL / VILMA MED OIL
Merger
Last decision date: 22.07.2024 Simplified procedure
BLACKSTONE / WINTHROP TECHNOLOGIES
Merger
Last decision date: 22.07.2024 Simplified procedure
CINVEN / ALTER DOMUS
Merger
Last decision date: 22.07.2024 Simplified procedure