11.11.2024
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
U.S. Court of Appeals Affirms Justice Department’s Victory Protecting Airline Competition
Friday, November 8, 2024Share 
For Immediate Release
Office of Public Affairs
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit today affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts’ ruling in favor of the Justice Department and the Attorneys General of six states and the District of Columbia in their civil antitrust lawsuit to stop the Northeast Alliance between American Airlines and JetBlue.
“Today’s decision is a hard-won victory for the millions of Americans who count on competition between airlines to fly affordably, whether to visit family, to go on vacation, or to travel for business,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “The airline industry — like every industry — must comply with the antitrust laws that protect consumers and prohibit anticompetitive coordination.”
“Today’s decision is yet another litigation victory for the Antitrust Division and American travelers who depend on competition for lower airfare and higher quality,” said Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “I am incredibly grateful for the hard work and dedication of the Antitrust Division staff that investigated and litigated this case, and to the state law enforcement partners who brought this case with us.”
The court’s opinion followed a judgment by the district court upholding the Justice Department’s challenge to American Airlines and JetBlue’s Northeast Alliance in May 2023. The Northeast Alliance was a series of agreements between American Airlines and JetBlue through which the two airlines consolidated their operations in Boston and New York City. The district court ruled that JetBlue and American Airlines’ decision to stop competing in Boston and New York, where they are major players, violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act because it eliminated competition for American travelers in many domestic markets for scheduled air passenger service, and the court of appeals affirmed that decision.
Updated November 8, 2024
Topic
Antitrust
Components
Office of the Attorney General
Antitrust Division Press Release Number: 24-1412
Commission opens antitrust investigation into possible anticompetitive practices by Corning over cover glass for electronic devices
Page contents
The European Commission has opened a formal investigation to assess whether Corning may have abused its dominant position on the worldwide market for a special type of glass that is mainly used to protect the screens of handheld electronic devices, such as mobile phones.
Corning, based in the US, is a global glass producer for many industrial and consumer applications. It produces Alkali-aluminosilicate glass (‘Alkali-AS Glass’), a particularly break-resistant glass mainly used as cover for displays of portable electronic devices such as mobile phones, tablets, or smartwatches. Corning markets Alkali-AS Glass under the ‘Gorilla Glass’ brand, among others.
The Commission has concerns that Corning may have distorted competition by concluding anti-competitive exclusive supply agreements with mobile phone manufacturers (Original Equipment Manufacturers or ‘OEMs’) and with companies that process raw glass (‘finishers’).
In particular, it appears that in its agreements with mobile OEMs Corning included:
- Exclusive sourcing obligations requiring OEMs to source all or nearly all of their Alkali-AS Glass demand from Corning.
- Exclusivity rebates granting rebates to OEMs on the condition that they comply with the exclusive sourcing obligations.
- ‘English clauses’ obliging OEMs to report to Corning on competitive offers, and allowing OEMs to accept that offer only if Corning fails to match the price.
Additionally, it appears that in its agreements with finishers Corning included:
- Exclusive purchase obligations obliging finishers to purchase all or nearly all of their Alkali-AS Glass demand, or an important subtype of Alkali-AS Glass, from Corning.
- No challenge clauses preventing finishers from challenging Corning’s patents.
The Commission is concerned that the agreements that Corning put in place with OEMs and finishers may have excluded rival glass producers from large segments of the market, thereby reducing customer choice, increasing prices, and stifling innovation to the detriment of consumers worldwide.
If proven, the behaviour under investigation may breach EU competition rules, which prohibit the abuse of a dominant position (Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’)).
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.
In parallel to the opening of proceedings, the Commission has adopted a Preliminary Assessment summarising the main facts of the case and identifying its competition concerns. To address the Commission’s concerns, Corning may now submit commitments.
Background
Article 102 TFEU 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, which can also be applied by the national competition authorities.
A Preliminary Assessment summarises the main facts of the case and identifies the competition concerns of the Commission. To meet these concerns, the addressee of the Preliminary Assessment may offer commitments in line with Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1/2003, which allows the Commission to conclude antitrust proceedings by accepting commitments offered by a company. Such a decision does not reach a conclusion as to whether there is an infringement of EU antitrust rules, but legally binds the company to respect the commitments submitted.
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 apply EU competition rules to the practices concerned. Article 16(1) further provides that national courts must avoid adopting decisions which would conflict with a decision contemplated by the Commission in proceedings it has initiated.
The Commission has informed Corning 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. Its duration 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
More information on the investigation will be available on the Commission’s competition website, in the public case register under the case number AT.40728.
Quote(s)
Related topics
Print friendly pdf
Antitrust
(42.914 KB – PDF)
Growth Partners e Campicarn notificam a aquisição do controlo conjunto sobre a Carnes Campicarn.
Ficha do processo
Atos de concentração – Decisões
CADE
Ato de Concentração nº 08700.008372/2024-84
Partes: Centrais Elétricas Brasileiras S.A. – Eletrobras, Companhia Hidroelétrica do São Francisco, Companhia de Geração e Transmissão de Energia do Sul do Brasil – CGT Eletrosul, Centrais Elétricas do Norte do Brasil S.A. e Gosolar Flutuantes SPE Ltda.
Aprovação sem restrições.
Ato de Concentração nº 08700.008272/2024-58
Requerentes: XP Controle 5 Participações Ltda. e Main3 Participações Ltda.
Aprovação sem restrições.
Ato de Concentração nº 08700.008565/2024-35
Partes: Açucareira Quatá S.A., Salto Botelho Agroenergia S.A. e Salto Botelho Agroenergia Fundo de Investimento em Participações Multiestratégia Investimento no Exterior.
Aprovação sem restrições.
Ato de Concentração nº 08700.008379/2024-04
Requerentes: Nova Sacramento Empreendimentos Imobiliários Ltda. e SPE IRA 13 Ltda.
Aprovação sem restrições
Ato de Concentração nº 08700.008647/2024-80
Requerentes: Cristália Produtos Químicos Farmacêuticos Ltda. e Sanofi Medley Farmacêutica Ltda.
Aprovação sem restrições.
Ato de Concentração nº 08700.008537/2024-18
Requerentes: Fundo de Investimento Imobiliário Guardian Real Estate e Atacadão S.A.
Aprovação sem restrições.
Ato de Concentração nº 08700.008386/2024-06
Partes: iFood Holdings B.V. e Shopper Holdings Ltd.
Aprovação sem restrições.
Ato de Concentração nº 08700.008294/2024-18
Partes: Serasa S.A. e Clear Sale S.A.
Aprovação sem restrições.
Autorité de la Concurrence
Secteur(s) :
24-DCC-236
relative à la prise de contrôle exclusif de Alcura France par Mutares
Décision de contrôle des concentrations|
Publication du sens de la décision le : 08 novembre 2024
Secteur(s) :
24-DCC-237
relative à la prise de contrôle exclusif de quinze fonds de commerce exploités par la société Courir France par la société Snipes SAS
Décision de contrôle des concentrations|
Publication du sens de la décision le : 08 novembre 2024
Secteur(s) :
24-DCC-235
relative à la création d’une entreprise commune par les sociétés TotalEnergies Marketing France et RATP Smart Systems
Décision de contrôle des concentrations|
Publication du sens de la décision le : 08 novembre 2024
Atos de concentração – Ingressos
CADE
Ato de concentração nº 08700.009093/2024-38
Requerentes: Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A.; Eletromidia S.A.
