An extract from The Dominance and Monopolies Review - 7th edition
The application of Article 7 of the Cartel Act requires three cumulative pre-conditions to be met: an undertaking is dominant on a certain market; through abusing this dominant position, this undertaking hinders other undertakings from starting or continuing to compete, or disadvantages trading partners; and there are no legitimate business reasons for the abusive behaviour of the dominant undertaking.
These pre-conditions need to be met even for the (non-exhaustive) list of examples of conduct that may be considered as abusive. In other words, the examples of Article 7, Paragraph 2 of the Cartel Act need to be applied in conjunction with its Paragraph 1. Article 7 of the Cartel Act covers both exclusionary and exploitative practices. The first mainly concern competitors while the second aim at harming commercial partners or consumers.
When assessing a potentially abusive behaviour, it is necessary to consider the specific circumstances of the case at hand. The Cartel Act does not contain any per se prohibitions. An assessment on a case-by-case basis is required, taking into consideration the specific market conditions. In particular, it needs to be analysed whether the conditions of a specific (contractual) relationship significantly diverge from those that could be expected in the context of effective competition. In practice, the authorities examine the competitive and anticompetitive effects of a certain conduct on the market, in particular when a conduct does not fall under one (or several) of the abuses listed in Article 7, Paragraph 2 of the Cartel Act, but is covered by the umbrella clause of Paragraph 1. The intent of an undertaking to abuse its dominant position is not a necessary requirement for an abusive behaviour to be considered as illegal. However, the presence of such intent facilitates the assessment of a certain competitive behaviour.
As mentioned, the enumeration of abuses contained in Article 7, Paragraph 2 of the Cartel Act is not exhaustive. Other types of conduct not covered by one of the examples listed but meeting the pre-conditions enumerated in Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the Cartel Act fall into the scope of application of this umbrella clause. This is, for example, the case for margin squeeze behaviour.
Abusive behaviour needs to be distinguished from competition on the merits. This distinction is particularly important to bear in mind when assessing the existence of legitimate business reasons for a certain behaviour. Even a dominant undertaking needs to be allowed to protect its own legitimate business interests by competing on the merits in order to maintain its leading market position. As a result, if a certain practice simply aims at improving the quality of a product (e.g., by requiring from suppliers the respect of a specific standard), such practice shall be considered legitimate even if it may eliminate certain suppliers or competitors.ii Exclusionary abuses
Exclusionary abuses may take various forms, such as exclusionary pricing, exclusive dealing and refusal to deal or to license, as well as tying and bundling practices.Refusal to deal
Refusal to deal is the first type of abusive conduct mentioned in the list of examples of Article 7, Paragraph 2, Letter a of the Cartel Act. This provision does not imply a general obligation to contract for dominant undertakings. According to the law, refusal to deal (e.g., refusal to supply or to purchase goods) is only unlawful if it has as its effect (or is likely to have as its effect) the anticompetitive foreclosure of the market and if it cannot be justified by legitimate business reasons (e.g., lack of quality of a certain supplier; precarious financial situation of a prospective franchisee). In particular, a refusal to deal is likely to be considered illegal if a dominant undertaking, by refusing to enter into a business relationship, intends to boycott its business partner or aims at forcing its business partner to behave in a certain way. Moreover, refusal to deal may, under certain circumstances, be considered unlawful if a dominant undertaking refuses to grant access to an essential facility. The concept of refusal to deal includes both the refusal to continue existing business relationships as well as the refusal to enter into new such relationships.
One of the first major cases in which the ComCo applied the 'essential facilities doctrine' concerned the refusal of an electricity distribution network company with a local monopoly to transport through its network the electricity from a third-party provider to a customer located in the monopolist's territory. In another significant case, the ComCo fined SIX Group 7 million Swiss francs for refusing to supply interface information to other competitors and thus rendering their products incompatible with the SIX card payment terminals. In a decision of 2013, the ComCo accepted an amicable settlement between the Secretariat and Swatch Group, according to which the latter may gradually reduce the supply of third-party customers with mechanical watch movements. Swatch Group thereby committed to supply certain minimum amounts per year and to treat all customers equally. In 2016, the ComCo fined Swisscom approximately 72 million Swiss francs for having refused to supply certain competitors with broadcasts of live sports for their platforms and for having granted only partial access to a reduced range of sport contents to others. An appeal against the ComCo decision is currently pending.
As far as refusal to license is concerned, such refusal would generally not be considered as abusive if no standard essential patents are concerned. In fact, it is inherent to intellectual property (IP) rights that the holders of these rights enjoy some form of exclusivity, which will allow them to act independently on the market to a certain extent. Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Cartel Act explicitly exempts the effects on competition that result exclusively from the legislation governing IP from its scope of application. It is only the modalities to exercise an IP right that may be considered abusive, namely if they go beyond the scope of protection conferred by the IP legislation (e.g., registration of patents for the sole purpose of blocking the technical development of competitors). However, the line is difficult to draw.Exclusive dealing
Exclusive dealing practices are not enumerated in the list under Article 7, Paragraph 2 of the Cartel Act. They may fall under the umbrella clause of Article 7, Paragraph 1. In a 2016 decision, the Federal Administrative Court found likely abuses of the dominant positions held by the ticketing provider Ticketcorner and the operator of the event location Hallenstadion in Zurich through exclusive dealing practices. In fact, the operator of the event location imposed an obligation upon event organisers to sell at least 50 per cent (de facto resulting in 100 per cent) of all tickets for events in the Hallenstadion via Ticketcorner. The case is currently pending before the Federal Supreme Court.Rebates
Discrimination between trading partners in relation to prices or other conditions of trade may be unlawful under the Cartel Act (Article 7, Paragraph 2, Letter b). Rebates can be considered as practices discriminating between trading partners, namely where only bigger customers above a certain turnover threshold may benefit from special (more favourable) agreements. In particular, fidelity rebates are illegal if they reward customers for procuring their entire demand from the same dominant undertaking, independently of the actual quantity procured. Such rebate systems are considered to impede the market entry of potential competitors since customers are reluctant to switch away from the dominant undertaking granting fidelity rebates. Target rebates are also illegal if they are granted under the condition that the customers achieve certain turnover targets set by the dominant undertaking. Their effect is considered to be comparable to the one of fidelity rebates. On the other hand, quantitative rebates based on cost efficiencies (e.g., economies of scale) are generally legitimate.
By a 2014 decision, the ComCo imposed a fine of approximately 1.9 million Swiss francs on the leading Swiss news agency Schweizerische Depeschenagentur (SDA) for offering exclusivity rebates (which were qualified as fidelity rebates) to a certain group of customers. The ComCo found that, by granting discounts of 20 per cent to customers who agreed to exclusively subscribe to SDA's news service (without also being subscribed to a competitor news service), SDA had abused its dominant position. In the absence of any legitimate business reasons, the exclusivity rebates were considered illegal.Predation
According to the law, any undercutting of prices or other conditions directed against a specific competitor may be unlawful (Article 7, Paragraph 2, Letter d of the Cartel Act). Such pricing strategies are, however, only illegal if they aim at driving competitors out of the market or preventing new competitors from entering the market (predatory pricing). Typically, a dominant undertaking would, in a first step, undercut prices of competitors until they leave a certain market, and then in a second step re-increase its prices once the competitive pressure has been decreased (or eliminated). In general, the ComCo is likely to infer that prices under average variable costs are aimed at driving competitors out of the market or preventing new competitors to enter the market. In contrast, low price strategies pursued by a dominant undertaking in order to access new markets or to sell off outdated products are legitimate business practices that shall not be considered as unlawful.
The ComCo has investigated presumed predatory pricing strategies on different occasions without having issued any decisions. In its previous practice, the ComCo has, however, developed some guidance on the conditions under which a pricing practice is likely to be considered abusive:
- the price cutting strategy needs to be systematic and occur over a certain period of time;
- it is aimed at one or several weaker (actual or potential) competitors;
- there is no possibility to increase profits in the short term (as would be the case if outdated remaining stock was sold at low prices); and
- the low prices may be re-increased at a later stage.
As a special form of price discrimination between trading partners (see Article 7, Paragraph 2, Letter b of the Cartel Act), price or margin squeezes may be considered an abuse of a dominant position. The ComCo defines price squeeze as a situation where a vertically integrated dominant undertaking sets its retail prices at a level that is so low compared to its wholesale prices that equally efficient competitors on the retail market, dependent on procuring a certain good or service from the dominant undertaking on the wholesale market, are not able to compete and make profits in the retail market.
In 2009, the ComCo fined the telecommunications provider Swisscom approximately 220 million Swiss francs for abuse of its dominant position in the market for broadband internet through margin or price squeeze behaviour. The ComCo found that, until the end of 2007, Swisscom, which also offered its asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) broadband internet services to end customers on the retail market, charged its competitors such high prices on the wholesale market that those competitors were not able to profitably offer their services on the retail market. The abusive and anticompetitive behaviour was corroborated by the fact that Swisscom generated large profits on the wholesale market, whereas its subsidiary active on the retail market incurred losses. On appeal by Swisscom, the Federal Administrative Court confirmed the ComCo decision in its substance, but reduced the fine imposed to approximately 186 million Swiss francs. The case is currently pending before the Federal Supreme Court. More recently, the ComCo imposed a fine of approximately 7.9 million Swiss francs on Swisscom for a price squeeze (and other abusive practices) in the wide area network (WAN) sector. A WAN is a telecommunications or computer network that extends over a large geographical distance. In a public tender process organised by Swiss Post in 2008, Swisscom offered a price for its WAN services that was approximately 30 per cent below its next competitor's price, the latter having to acquire prior facilities from Swisscom on a wholesale level before being able to offer its WAN services to Swiss Post. Swisscom's wholesale price for the prior facilities allegedly was significantly above the price with which Swisscom won the public tender, which did not allow any competitor to compete on the retail market. An appeal against the ComCo decision is currently pending before the Federal Administrative Court.Tying and bundling
According to the Cartel Act, any conclusion of contracts on the condition that the other contracting party agrees to accept or deliver additional goods or services is unlawful (Article 7, Paragraph 2, Letter f of the Cartel Act). By such tying practices, a dominant undertaking aims at forcing its trading partners to procure unwanted goods or services in order to be able to procure the goods or services actually wanted. Trading partners are thus restricted in their freedom to take business decisions, whereas competitors are pushed out of the market. Tying practices may be legal if the tied good or service is a necessary prerequisite for the main good or service to be procured. There needs to be a factual link between the two items. Such factual link may exist for technical or safety reasons (e.g., if a licensor requires its licensee to procure certain raw materials for the production of the licensed product from the licensor, given the specific quality or characteristics of the raw materials needed). An indicator for the existence of a factual link between the main product or service and the tied one is the fact that they both belong to the same product markets. Conversely, if separate product markets exist, a factual link requiring tying of both products and services is unlikely.
The ComCo has investigated tying practices on several occasions, usually denying the finding of an abusive behaviour. In a 2002 case, for example, the Secretariat found that the Swiss national railway company, SBB, holding a dominant position in the main relevant market (but being non-dominant in the tied market), had abused its position through an illegal tying practice. In fact, a company called Lokoop requested an offer from SBB for the use of its railway system on certain routes to transport parcels. In addition, Lokoop requested a separate offer for various extra services at specific train stations (e.g., for the shunting of trains). In response to this request, SBB insisted on offering a bundle of services to Lokoop, which was considered unlawful by the Secretariat. Ultimately, the ComCo closed the investigation without a sanction since SBB agreed to abandon its allegedly abusive tying practice.iii Discrimination
Under the Cartel Act, any discrimination between trading partners in relation to prices or other conditions of trade is considered unlawful (Article 7, Paragraph 2, Letter b of the Cartel Act). As mentioned above, discriminatory practices may appear in different forms, such as loyalty or target rebates granted or accessible only to customers achieving a certain turnover threshold, as well as margin or price squeezes. The term 'in relation to other conditions of trade' used by the law is to be interpreted broadly. It covers any contractual provisions entailing an economic advantage or disadvantage (e.g., in regard to discounts or payment terms). However, the prohibition to discriminate between trading partners does not imply a general obligation of equal treatment. Unequal treatment shall be considered unproblematic as long as it can objectively be justified (e.g., quantity rebates, justified by corresponding economies of scale).iv Exploitative abuses
The imposition of unfair prices or other unfair conditions of trade is considered unlawful (Article 7, Paragraph 2, Letter c of the Cartel Act). To determine if a price is 'unfair', it is necessary to examine the market value of the product or service offered and the ability of the dominant undertaking to behave independently in setting its prices. This ability is likely to be a given if customers lack alternatives. The imposition of unfair prices (implying an element of coercion) by a dominant undertaking is thus facilitated. It is unclear whether, under Swiss law, it is necessary to prove the 'imposition' as a coercive element under Article 7, Paragraph 2, Letter c of the Cartel Act, or whether it is sufficient to prove the existence of a causal link between the dominant position and the unfair prices.
The prohibition on imposing unfair prices does not imply an obligation to set fair prices. Neither does this prohibition aim at protecting customers from paying unduly high prices. Rather, this provision shall promote effective competition and ensure that prices are the result of an interplay between offer and demand. In this context, the ComCo considers that the Federal Price Surveillance Act of 20 December 1985, which aims at the avoidance of abusive pricing, may be applied in parallel.
In a decision of 2007, the ComCo imposed a record fine of approximately 333 million Swiss francs on Swisscom as it considered its termination rates in the mobile network sector as unfair. However, the decision was annulled by the Federal Administrative Court and the annulment confirmed by the Federal Supreme Court. The latter considered that, due to the regulatory framework applicable in the telecommunications sector, Swisscom could not exert any coercion on its trading partners. More recently, the ComCo also fined Swisscom for imposing unfair prices on its competitors when offering its WAN connection services on a wholesale level.