Notícias da concorrência

Cade discute concorrência nos ecossistemas digitais móveis em audiência pública

Debate reuniu empresas, especialistas e sociedade para discutir questões concorrenciais em mercados digitais relacionados aos sistemas operacionais iOS e Android.

Publicado em 20/02/2025 09h24 Atualizado em 20/02/2025 14h49

O Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Cade) realizou nesta quarta-feira (19/2) audiência pública para discutir os ecossistemas digitais relacionados aos sistemas operacionais iOS e Android.  

O evento contou com a presença de autoridades do poder público, representantes do setor empresarial, sociedade civil e academia, com o objetivo de debater as questões concorrenciais envolvendo os sistemas operacionais iOS, da Apple, e Android, do Google, e suas respectivas lojas de aplicativos, a App Store e o Google Play. 

A audiência foi dividida em diversas etapas, começando com a mesa de abertura. O presidente do Cade, Alexandre Cordeiro, destacou a importância da análise aprofundada do tema. “Estamos em um momento de discussão sobre regulação da economia digital. A ideia desse encontro é ‘jogar um pouco de luz’ nessa discussão, diminuindo a assimetria de informações para que a autoridade concorrencial possa, dentro de seus casos, tomar a decisão que maximize a utilização da sociedade de uma maneira geral”, afirmou.  

A secretária Nacional de Direitos Digitais do Ministério da Justiça, Lílian Cintra, definiu o encontro como uma “abertura para a inovação”, declarando que o caráter é desafiador dos mercados digitais, amplamente discutido em diversas frentes, com o objetivo de promover seu aperfeiçoamento. “As informações trazidas aqui serão úteis para que o Cade, que sempre teve um perfil aberto ao diálogo, possa avançar nessa frente de trabalho”, disse. 

Na mesa, também estavam presentes o superintendente-geral do Cade, Alexandre Barreto, o procurador-chefe do Cade, André Freire, os conselheiros Diogo Thomson, Victor Fernandes, José Levi e Camila Pires-Alves, além do advogado Guilherme Guimarães, membro da Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU), e Carlos Almeida, representante do Banco Central do Brasil (Bacen).

No segundo bloco da audiência, representantes do setor empresarial realizaram manifestações orais: Apple Inc., Google Inc., Epic Games Inc., Match Group Inc., Zetta, Coalition for App Fairness, Associação Brasileira de Internet (ABRANET) e FS Security. Em seguida, manifestaram-se representantes da sociedade civil e academia, com intervenções das organizações Coalizão Direitos na Rede (CDR), Artigo 19, Proteste | Euroconsumers-Brasil, Instituto de Defesa de Consumidores (IDEC), Data Privacy, Sleeping Giants Brasil, Núcleo de Estudos E-Commerce e Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade da FGV Direito Rio e também de pesquisadores da Comissão Europeia (Centro de Pesquisa) e da Universidade de Glasgow. O encerramento contou com fala da Conselheira Camila Pires-Alves.

As contribuições recebidas serão incorporadas a um documento de trabalho, que, posteriormente, ficará disponível no site do Cade. 

O debate está disponível no canal do Cade no YouTube, assista na íntegra!

Por Flávio Lacerda

Publicada pauta da sessão de julgamento da próxima quarta-feira (26/2). Confira!

Quatro casos serão apreciados durante a 243ª reunião do Tribunal Administrativo

Publicado em 20/02/2025 08h59 Atualizado em 20/02/2025 13h29

Foi publicada, no Diário Oficial da União desta quinta-feira (20/2), a pauta da próxima sessão de julgamento do Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Cade). A 243ª Sessão Ordinária de Julgamento, que terá quatro casos apreciados pelo Tribunal, acontecerá no dia 26/2, às 10h, com transmissão pelo YouTube.

Confira a pauta de julgamento:

1. Ato de Concentração nº 08700.008386/2024-06

Requerentes: iFood Holdings B.V. e Shopper Holdings, LTD.

Relator: conselheiro José Levi

2. Procedimento Administrativo de Apuração de Ato de Concentração nº 08700.005460/2019-67

Representados: Mais Distribuidora de Veículos S.A., M&L Comércio de Veículos Automotores Ltda., Green Star Peças e Veículos Ltda., Geniali Distribuidora de Veículos Ltda., Etrusca Distribuidora de Veículos Ltda., United Auto São Paulo Comércio de Veículos Ltda., André Britto Novis e Christiana de Souza Ramos Novis, Soma Automóveis Ltda., Dijon Administradora de Imóveis Ltda., Strada Veículos e Peças Ltda., Roberto Luiz Faberge e Itavema France Veículos Ltda.

Relator: conselheiro Carlos Jacques

3. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.005876/2019-85

Representante: Secretaria de Estado da Educação – Governo do Estado de São Paulo.

Representados: Auto Viação Jauense Ltda., Mayfran Locação de Veículos e Transportes Ltda., New Hope Terceirização e Transportes Catanduva Ltda. e Viação Sudeste EIRELI.

Relatora: conselheira Camila Cabral

4. Embargos de Declaração no Processo Administrativo nº 08700.002124/2016-10

Representante: Associação Evangélica Beneficente Espírito Santense – AEBES.

Representados: Federação Brasileira das Cooperativas de Especialidades Médicas (Febracem), Cooperativa de Anestesiologia do Estado do Espírito Santo (COOPANEST/ES), Cooperativa dos Médicos Intensivistas do Espírito Santo (Cooperati), Cooperativa dos Cirurgiões Plásticos do Estado do Espirito Santo (Cooplastes), Cooperativa dos Cirurgiões Gerais do Estado do Espírito Santo (Cooperciges), Cooperativa dos Cirurgiões Pediátricos do Estado do Espírito Santo (Coopercipes), Cooperativa dos Cirurgiões Cardiovasculares do Estado do Espírito Santo (Coopcardio), Cooperativa dos Neurocirurgiões do Estado do Espírito Santo (Coopneuro), Cooperativa de Ortopedistas e Traumatologistas do Espírito Santo (Cootes), Cooperativa dos Angiologistas e Cirurgiões Vasculares do Espírito Santo (Coopangio), Conselho Regional de Medicina do Espírito Santo (CRM-ES), Sociedade Brasileira de Neurocirurgia (SBN), Erick Freitas Curi, Paulo Roberto Paiva, Modesto Cerioni Junior e Clemente Augusto de Brito Pereira.

Relator: conselheiro Gustavo Augusto

UK government bonds: suspected anti-competitive arrangements

The CMA has issued five separate infringement decisions under the Competition Act 1998 after investigating suspected anti-competitive arrangements in relation to UK government bonds.

From: Competition and Markets Authority Published16 November 2018Last updated21 February 2025 — See all updates Case type: CA98 and civil cartels Case state: Open Market sector:Financial services Outcome: CA98 – infringement Chapter I Opened:13 November 2018

Contents

1. Case timetable
2. Infringement decisions and settlement
3. Statement of objections
4. Case information
5. Personal data
6. Contacts
   1. Media enquiries
   2. Senior Responsible Officer
   3. Project Director
   4. Assistant Project Directors

Case timetable

Infringement decisions and settlement

On 21 February 2025, the CMA issued five separate infringement decisions finding that 5 pairs of banks broke competition law by unlawfully sharing competitively sensitive information, and imposed fines totalling over £100 million.

The unlawful exchanges occurred in separate online Bloomberg chatrooms between individual traders at 2 banks at a time on various dates between 2009 to 2013.

The decisions are addressed (in alphabetical order) to: Citigroup Global Markets Limited and its ultimate parent company Citigroup Inc. (together ‘Citi’), Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft (‘Deutsche Bank’), HSBC Bank Plc and its ultimate parent company HSBC Holdings Plc (together ‘HSBC’), Morgan Stanley & Co. International Plc and its ultimate parent company, Morgan Stanley (together ‘Morgan Stanley’) and RBC Europe Limited and its ultimate parent company Royal Bank of Canada (together ‘Royal Bank of Canada’).

Four banks – Citi, HSBC, Morgan Stanley and Royal Bank of Canada – have settled and agreed to pay fines totalling £104,460,000:

• Citi: £17,160,000 – this includes a 35% leniency discount and a 20% reduction for settling in advance of the CMA issuing the Statement of Objections
• HSBC: £23,400,000 – this includes a 10% reduction for settling after the CMA issued the Statement of Objections
• Morgan Stanley: £29,700,000 – this includes a 10% reduction for settling after the CMA issued the Statement of Objections
• Royal Bank of Canada: £34,200,000 – this includes a 10% reduction for settling after the CMA issued the Statement of Objections

Deutsche Bank alerted the CMA to its participation in the unlawful conduct under the CMA’s leniency policy and benefits from immunity from any fine.

• Press release: CMA reaches settlement with banks in competition case (21.2.25)

Statement of objections

On 24 May 2023, the CMA issued a statement of objections provisionally finding that 5 major banks – Citi, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Morgan Stanley and Royal Bank of Canada – broke competition law by each unlawfully sharing competitively sensitive information through one or more series of one-to-one conversations in chatrooms. The alleged conduct concerned the buying and selling of UK government bonds – specifically gilts and gilt asset swaps. These one-to-one conversations took place at varying times between 2009 and 2013.

The statement of objections is addressed to Citigroup Global Markets Limited and its ultimate parent company Citigroup Inc. (together ‘Citi’), Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft (‘Deutsche Bank’), HSBC Bank Plc and its ultimate parent company HSBC Holdings Plc (together ‘HSBC’), Morgan Stanley & Co. International Plc and its ultimate parent company, Morgan Stanley (together ‘Morgan Stanley’) and RBC Europe Limited and its ultimate parent company Royal Bank of Canada (together ‘Royal Bank of Canada’).

Deutsche Bank alerted the CMA to its participation in the alleged unlawful behaviour under the CMA’s leniency policy, and Citi applied for leniency during the CMA’s investigation. Both banks have admitted their involvement in anti-competitive activity and providing they continue to cooperate and comply with the conditions of leniency, Deutsche Bank will not be fined and any fine that Citi receives will be discounted.

Citi has also entered into a settlement agreement with the CMA and providing it complies with the terms of settlement, will receive a further discount to any fine imposed.

HSBC, Morgan Stanley and Royal Bank of Canada have not admitted any wrongdoing.

The CMA’s findings are provisional. Parties have the opportunity to make representations on the matters set out in the statement of objections. At this stage, no assumption should be made that the banks have broken the law.

• Press release: CMA provisionally finds 5 banks broke competition law on UK bonds

Case information

On 13 November 2018, the CMA launched an investigation into suspected anti-competitive arrangements in the financial services sector which may infringe the Chapter I prohibition of the Competition Act 1998 (CA98) and/or Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Following the end of the EU Exit Transition Period, the CMA’s investigation continues into suspected anti-competitive arrangements which may infringe the Chapter I prohibition of the CA98.

The CMA and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have concurrent functions to enforce competition law infringements in the financial services sector. It has been agreed (pursuant to regulation 4 of the Competition Act 1998 (Concurrency) Regulations 2014) that the CMA will exercise those functions in relation to this investigation.

The investigation is ongoing and no assumption should be made at this point that competition law has been infringed. 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 of the parties under investigation. Not all cases result in the CMA issuing a statement of objections. Further detail of the CMA’s procedures in CA98 cases is available in our guidance.

As a result, it would not be appropriate to include any further estimates of the timing of any later investigative steps at this stage.

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

Media enquiries

020 3738 6460, press@cma.gov.uk

Senior Responsible Officer

Juliette Enser (020 3738 6857, juliette.enser@cma.gov.uk)

Project Director

Tamara Todorovic (020 3738 6598, tamara.todorovic@cma.gov.uk)

Assistant Project Directors

Kate Houston (020 3738 6482, kate.houston@cma.gov.uk)

Nicholas Scola (02037386931, nicholas.scola@cma.gov.uk)

Updates to this page

Published 16 November 2018
Last updated 21 February 2025 + show all updates

CMA reaches settlement with banks in competition case

Banks agree to pay fines for past exchanges of sensitive information about UK government bonds.

From: Competition and Markets Authority Published21 February 2025

• CMA and 4 banks agree to settle separate cases related to UK government bonds, known as gilts
• Citi, HSBC, Morgan Stanley and Royal Bank of Canada will pay fines totalling over £100 million – Deutsche Bank has immunity for reporting its conduct which began in 2009 and ended in 2013
• Individual traders at each of the banks took part in private one-to-one Bloomberg chatrooms in which they shared sensitive information relating to buying and selling gilts on specific dates

Gilts are an important type of UK government bond that help to finance public spending. Investors in gilts lend money to the UK government and in return receive a steady and stable stream of cash interest payments.

Healthy competition drives investment, innovation and growth, and it is important that competitors decide their price and strategies independently in order to ensure effective competition in a market. 

Following an investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the banks have agreed to pay fines for specific instances in which traders shared competitively sensitive information about aspects of the pricing of UK bonds. The sharing of information occurred in one-to-one exchanges between traders about the buying and selling of gilts and gilt asset swaps.

This conduct took place on various dates between 2009-2013, with the last exchanges occurring in 2010 for HSBC, 2012 for Morgan Stanley, and 2013 for each of Citi, Deutsche Bank and Royal Bank of Canada. Since then, the banks have implemented extensive compliance measures to ensure this behaviour does not happen again.

Juliette Enser, Executive Director of Competition Enforcement at the CMA, said:

Following constructive engagement between the banks and the CMA, we are pleased that we have been able to settle these 5 cases involving the past sharing of competitively sensitive information about pricing.

The financial services sector is an integral part of the UK economy, contributing billions every year, and it’s essential that it functions effectively. Only through healthy and competitive markets can we ensure businesses and investors have confidence to invest and grow – for the benefit of all in the UK.

The fines imposed today reflect the CMA’s commitment to dealing with competition law breaches and deterring anti-competitive conduct. The fines would have been substantially higher had the banks not already taken unusually extensive steps to make sure that this doesn’t happen again.

Unlawful exchanges in one-to-one chatrooms

Each of the exchanges took place in separate bilateral online Bloomberg chatrooms between individual traders at 2 banks [see Figure 1] and included information relevant to the pricing of UK government bonds – specifically, gilts and gilt asset swaps.

In particular, each one-to-one exchange of information took place in relation to one or more of the following: firstly, the sale of gilts by the UK Debt Management Office via auctions on behalf of HM Treasury, secondly the subsequent buying and selling, i.e. trading, of gilts and gilt asset swaps, and thirdly the selling of gilts to the Bank of England – known as ‘buy back’. Not all banks were involved in unlawful exchanges in all 3 contexts.

Figure 1 – Parties to the separate one-to-one exchanges

Consequences

Four banks – Citi, HSBC, Morgan Stanley and Royal Bank of Canada – have settled and agreed to pay fines totalling £104,460,000.

Deutsche Bank is exempt from a financial penalty as it alerted the CMA to its participation in the chats via the authority’s leniency policy. Citi applied for leniency during the CMA’s investigation and as a result has received a reduced fine.

In agreeing to settle with the CMA, the banks have agreed to pay these fines, bringing the investigation to a close.

The fines for each bank are:

• Citi: £17,160,000 – this includes a 35% leniency discount and a 20% reduction for settling in advance of the CMA issuing its Statement of Objections
• HSBC: £23,400,000 – this includes a 10% reduction for settling after the CMA issued its Statement of Objections
• Morgan Stanley: £29,700,000 – this includes a 10% reduction for settling after the CMA issued its Statement of Objections
• Royal Bank of Canada: £34,200,000 – this includes a 10% reduction for settling after the CMA issued its Statement of Objections

The fines take into account the length of time that has passed since the end of the infringements and the extensive compliance measures that the banks have implemented since then – some of which were in place before the start of the CMA’s investigation.

The firms have until 22 April 2025 to pay their fines.

More information on this investigation and the CMA’s update is available on the UK government bonds: suspected anti-competitive arrangements case page.

Notes to editors

1. A gilt is a UK government bond issued by HM Treasury through the UK Debt Management Office (‘DMO’). This case concerned conventional gilts only, i.e. gilts that pay a fixed rate of interest to the holder. Gilts are commonly issued through auction by the DMO in the UK to gilt-edged market makers (‘GEMMs’) and are actively traded in the financial market following issuance. All 5 banks investigated by the CMA are GEMMs.
2. In 2009, in response to the financial crisis, the Bank of England adopted a quantitative easing (‘QE’) policy, which involved the Bank of England buying assets – the majority of which were gilts. The Bank of England therefore conducted regular buy-back auctions at certain points during the relevant period.
3. The DMO, the Bank of England and HM Treasury were not under investigation. The DMO, on behalf of HM Treasury, and the Bank of England have assisted the CMA with the investigation by responding to information requests.
4. The CMA has issued five separate bilateral infringement decisions. Decision documents are addressed to the following entities: Citigroup Global Markets Limited and its ultimate parent company Citigroup Inc. (together ‘Citi’), Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft (‘Deutsche Bank’), HSBC Bank Plc and its ultimate parent company HSBC Holdings Plc (together ‘HSBC’), Morgan Stanley & Co. International Plc and its ultimate parent company Morgan Stanley (together ‘Morgan Stanley’), and RBC Europe Limited and its ultimate parent company Royal Bank of Canada (together ‘Royal Bank of Canada’).
5. In each decision, the CMA has found a single and repeated ‘by object’ infringement (i.e. that the conduct had, as its object, the restriction or distortion of competition within the UK). The CMA has not made any finding as to whether the conduct at issue had the effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition.
6. The information exchanges took place between: – Citi and Deutsche Bank: on 12 specific dates between July 2012 and January 2013 – Citi and Morgan Stanley: on 3 specific dates between December 2011 and February 2012 – Deutsche Bank and HSBC: on 12 specific dates between October 2009 and June 2010 – Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley: on 8 specific dates between October 2009 and June 2011 – Deutsche Bank and Royal Bank of Canada: on 41 specific dates between November 2009 and April 2013
7. In the case of 4 of the banks (Citi, Deutsche Bank, HSBC and Morgan Stanley) the information was exchanged by a single trader based in the UK. In the case of the Royal Bank of Canada, the information was exchanged on different occasions by 2 traders based in the UK. None of the traders remain employed by the bank they worked for at the time.
8. Bloomberg chatrooms are a means of electronic communication through which participants can exchange messages. Although the information exchanged through certain Bloomberg chatrooms formed part of the CMA’s investigation, Bloomberg was not under investigation.
9. All banks were involved in unlawful exchanges relating to trading. In addition, Citi, Deutsche Bank, HSBC and Morgan Stanley were involved in unlawful exchanges relating to auctions; and Deutsche Bank, Citi and Morgan Stanley were involved in unlawful exchanges relating to buy-back auctions. Deutsche Bank and RBC also coordinated their strategies for trading gilts via brokers on a limited number of occasions.
10. Under the CMA’s leniency policy, a business that has been involved in cartel activity may be granted immunity from penalties or a reduction in penalty in return for reporting the cartel activity and assisting the CMA with its investigation.
11. A party under investigation by the CMA may enter into a settlement agreement if it is prepared to admit that it has breached competition law, is willing to pay a fine and agree to a streamlined administrative procedure for the remainder of the investigation. Settlement can take place before or after the CMA issues a Statement of Objections, which sets out the CMA’s provisional findings of fact and its legal and economic assessment of them.
12. The CMA and the Financial Conduct Authority have concurrent functions to enforce competition law in the financial services sector. It was agreed that the CMA would exercise those functions in relation to this investigation.
13. For media enquiries, contact the CMA press office on 020 3738 6460 or press@cma.gov.uk.

Consultée pour la première fois à la demande de l’Autorité des relations sociales des plateformes d’emploi, l’Autorité de la concurrence rend un avis réservé sur un accord collectif signé dans le secteur des VTC et recommande de réaliser une étude d’impact avant d’homologuer cet accord

Publié le 20 février 2025

L’essentiel

L’Autorité de la concurrence a été saisie sur le fondement de l’article L.462-1 du code de commerce par le ministre de l’Économie, des finances et de la souveraineté industrielle et numérique d’une demande d’avis concernant un accord collectif signé le 19 décembre 2023 dans le cadre du dialogue social spécifique au secteur des services de transport par voitures de transport avec chauffeur (ci-après « VTC »).

L’ARPE (Autorité des relations sociales des plateformes d’emploi) est chargée par la loi de d’homologuer chaque accord signé, c’est-à-dire d’étendre l’accord à l’ensemble des acteurs du secteur ou non. Elle peut refuser de le faire « pour des motifs d’intérêt général, notamment pour atteinte excessive à la libre concurrence ». C’est dans ce cadre et conformément à l’article L. 7343-50 du code du travail qu’elle a demandé au ministre de l’Économie de saisir l’Autorité de la concurrence, qui se voit ainsi amenée à se prononcer, pour la première fois, sur un accord collectif de ce type.

L’accord faisant l’objet de la saisine, prévoit l’obligation pour les plateformes de se doter d’un dispositif permettant à chaque chauffeur de choisir une base de revenu minimal par kilomètre de course, à partir de laquelle lui seront faites par préférence des propositions de course par la plateforme. Signé par une seule organisation professionnelle de plateformes (dont le principal adhérent est Uber, acteur détenant une position très forte sur le marché) et par deux des sept syndicats de chauffeurs ayant pris part aux négociations, l’accord une fois homologué conduirait à généraliser un système que seul Uber semble en mesure de mettre en œuvre.

L’Autorité de la concurrence considère que si l’accord ne porte pas en lui-même atteinte à la libre concurrence, de nombreuses interrogations restent sans réponse. En l’état actuel, il est impossible d’affirmer que l’acquisition d’un tel dispositif pourrait constituer un facteur d’éviction  ni qu’il améliorerait effectivement les conditions de travail des chauffeurs de VTC indépendants. 

Pour ses raisons, l’Autorité appelle l’ARPE à la vigilance car l’Autorité n’exclut pas que l’extension de cet accord à l’ensemble du secteur soit de nature à porter une atteinte à la concurrence, ce qui engagerait la responsabilité de l’État. L’Autorité précise qu’il serait opportun, avant toute homologation de cet accord, de faire réaliser une étude d’impact préalable approfondie des conséquences économiques, sociales et financières. L’Autorité n’étant pas en mesure de procéder à de telles études, elle invite l’Etat à octroyer à l’ARPE les moyens juridiques et financiers nécessaires.

Le cadre du dialogue social spécifique au secteur des services intermédiés de transport par VTC (voitures de transport avec chauffeur)

• La mise en place d’un dialogue social dans le secteur des VTC

Afin de doter les chauffeurs de VTC non-salariés de garanties et droits similaires à ceux des travailleurs salariés et de contribuer ainsi à apaiser les relations entre plateformes et chauffeurs, le législateur a rendu obligatoire un dialogue social entre les plateformes de mise en relation et ces travailleurs indépendants par l’intermédiaire de leurs organisations professionnelles représentatives.

Ces négociations, menées sous l’égide de l’Autorité des relations sociales des plateformes d’emploi (ARPE), ont permis d’aboutir à la conclusion de plusieurs accords et avenants depuis le début de l’année 2023 (notamment concernant l’instauration de revenus minimum par course et par heure d’activité). C’est dans le cadre de ces négociations que s’inscrit l’accord soumis, pour avis, à l’Autorité.

• L’accord du 19 décembre 2023

Le présent accord soumis à l’avis de l’Autorité  prévoit l’obligation, pour chaque plateforme, de se doter d’un dispositif permettant à chaque chauffeur de choisir un revenu minimal par kilomètre de course à partir duquel il souhaite recevoir par préférence des propositions de course par la plateforme. Signé par une seule organisation professionnelle de plateformes (et dont le principal adhérent, Uber, détient sur le marché français un poids particulièrement important et par deux des sept syndicats de chauffeurs ayant pris part aux négociations en 2023), il remplit les conditions de l’article L. 7343-29 du code du travail et s’applique aux signataires.

L’ARPE envisage d’homologuer cet accord et donc de l’étendre à toutes les plateformes et tous les chauffeurs de VTC indépendants. La décision d’homologation, comme la décision d’extension d’un accord de branche en droit du travail, n’étant prise qu’après un contrôle de légalité du texte de l’accord, l’ARPE est en charge de vérifier que cet accord ne porte pas atteinte à la libre concurrence.

L’accord du 19 décembre 2023 ne porte pas en lui-même atteinte à la concurrence

Si le présent accord prévoyant la mise en place par les plateformes d’un dispositif permettant à chaque exploitant de choisir un revenu minimum par kilomètre de course, il n’est actuellement proposé que par Uber.

Pour l’Autorité, la détention par un seul opérateur du marché d’une technologie dont ses concurrents ne disposent pas, ou dont l’acquisition représente un coût significatif, ou sur laquelle un opérateur a pris une avance considérable dans la conception et le développement même si la technologie n’est pas encore pleinement opérationnelle au moment de l’analyse ne constitue pas en soi une atteinte aux règles du droit de la concurrence.

L’Autorité recommande de faire procéder à une étude d’impact avant d’envisager une homologation de l’accord

Si l’accord ne porte pas en lui-même atteinte à la concurrence, sa généralisation soulève un certain nombre de questions sans réponse qui pourraient avoir des conséquences anti-concurrentielles. D’abord, les différents acteurs ne sont pas en mesure de confirmer le coût qu’impliquerait le développement de ce dispositif de sorte qu’il est en l’état impossible d’éviter la possibilité que cet accord permette en réalité à  Uber d’évincer ses concurrents. Il convient d’ailleurs de noter qu’Uber dispose de volumes de données sans commune mesure par rapport à ses concurrents pour développer et tester des technologies, en raison du nombre de chauffeurs VTC qui font appel à son service de mise en relation en France et du nombre de courses qu’ils effectuent.

Par ailleurs, l’Autorité appelle l’ARPE à vérifier que l’accord soit suffisamment équilibré entre les objectifs sociaux et la prise en compte des éventuels risques concurrentiels. En l’espèce, l’avancée sociale pour les chauffeurs n’étant pas établie, il convient de procéder à une étude d’impact, étude que l’Autorité de la concurrencer ne peut réaliser, faute d’éléments suffisants qui lui permettraient d’arbitrer.

Recommandations

• L’Autorité recommande à l’ARPE de ne prendre la décision d’homologation qu’après avoir procédé à une consultation approfondie sur la faisabilité technique de chaque accord et sur les avantages réels attendus pour les chauffeurs en termes d’avancées sociales.

• L’Autorité appelle le législateur et le pouvoir réglementaire à doter l’ARPE de la possibilité de recourir à une expertise permettant de disposer d’une évaluation des impacts économiques, financiers, sociaux et technologiques de chaque accord, afin notamment de limiter le risque qu’une décision d’homologation rende l’État responsable d’une atteinte aux principes de libre concurrence sur le marché.

Avis 25-A-03 du 21 janvier 2025

relatif à l’accord du 19 décembre 2023 renforçant la liberté de choix de leurs courses par les chauffeurs VTC ayant recours à une plateforme de mise en relation

Lire le texte intégral

Decisões da concorrência

Comissão Europeia

ARROW GLOBAL / IQERA

Merger

M.11859

Last decision date: 20.02.2025 Simplified procedure

TIKEHAU CAPITAL / ARMIRA GROUP / FTAPI

Merger

M.11841

Last decision date: 20.02.2025 Simplified procedure

CMA

GXO / Wincanton merger inquiry

• The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is investigating the completed acquisition by GXO Logistics, Inc. of Wincanton Plc.
  • Updated: 20 February 2025

Iberdrola / NWEN merger inquiry

• The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is investigating the completed acquisition by Iberdrola, S.A., through its subsidiary Scottish Power Energy Networks Holdings Limited, of North West Electricity Networks (Jersey) L…
  • Updated: 20 February 2025

Autorité de la Concurrence

Secteur(s) :

• Distribution
• Grande consommation

25-DCC-38
relative à la prise de contrôle conjoint de la société Calao 246 par les sociétés Lolucas et ITM Entreprises

Décision de contrôle des concentrations|

Publication du sens de la décision le : 20 février 2025

Secteur(s) :

• Distribution
• Grande consommation

25-DCC-39
relative à la prise de contrôle conjoint de la société Société de distribution de la Saintonge par les sociétés Chabroy et ITM Entreprises

Décision de contrôle des concentrations|

Publication du sens de la décision le : 20 février 2025

Secteur(s) :

• Distribution
• Grande consommation

25-DCC-36
relative à la prise de contrôle conjoint des sociétés Calao 183 et Calao 208 par les sociétés Juripard et ITM Entreprises

Décision de contrôle des concentrations|

Publication du sens de la décision le : 20 février 2025

Autoridade da concorrência de Portugal

Altri notifica a aquisição do controlo exclusivo sobre a Greenalia.

Ficha do processo

Ficha do processo

Temas relacionados

Acesse todos os clippings da concorrência

https://webadvocacy.com.br/category/clipping-da-concorrencia

Principiais sítios eletrônicos de defesa da concorrência do mundo

CADE – Autoridade do Brasil

FTC – Federal Trade Commission

USDOJ – Departamento de Justiça dos EUA

Comissão Europeia – Responsável pela política da concorrência na Europa

CMA – Autoridade do Reino Unido

Autorité de la Concurrence – Autoridade da França

AdC -Autoridade de Portugal

CNMC – Autoridade da Espanha

CNDC – Autoridade da Argentina

AGCM – Autoridade da Itália

COFECE – Autoridade do México