We reported last year on the Eturas decision, in which the Court of Justice ruled that technical measures applied on an online platform gave rise to a potentially anti-competitive agreement. The Lithuanian Court which had referred the matter to the CJEU then went on to consider liability, based on the participants’ knowledge of the relevant facts (for a review of this decision, see here).
But the risks posed by agreements over platform T&Cs are not the only thing for companies to be aware of.
The European Commission is now carrying out active enforcement in relation to geo-blocking, which can be achieved primarily through technical measures. The Steam video games investigation is looking in particular at whether anti-piracy measures have an anti-competitive effect.
Meanwhile, the CMA last autumn issued a statement noting another practice potentially raising antitrust concerns. This concerned agreements restricting the use of paid online search advertising (e.g. through use of Google AdWords). The CMA suggested that restrictions on bidding for particular ad terms, or on negative matching (identifying terms for which ads should not be shown) may infringe the competition rules. It appears that the CMA sees this in terms of potential effects on competition, rather than as a new form of object restriction, with the CMA stating that the practices are particularly likely to be problematic “where one or more similar agreements include parties that collectively represent a material share of the relevant markets and, in the context of brand bidding restrictions, as a result of negative matching obligations in relation to brand terms which an advertiser would not negatively match but for the agreement”. It should therefore not be assumed that such a provision would in fact be restrictive of competition – but it is something which bears watching. Indeed, the CMA is not the only competition authority to have lighted on this issue – a similar point is under investigation in the United States, where the FTC accuses 1-800 Contacts of “orchestrating a web of anticompetitive agreements with rival online contact lens sellers that suppress competition in certain online search advertising auctions”.
In conjunction with this statement, the CMA also announced a market study into digital comparison tools; it described the study as an opportunity to explore the nature of competition between price comparison websites and their relationship with service providers. This may lead to further issues in this area; in the meantime, judgment in the Coty case, which considers contractual prohibitions on the use of certain online sales channels, such as price comparison websites, is due from the CJEU in the near future.
And then there’s the risk of good ol’-fashioned collusion, with a modern twist. One thing that comes to mind is the new attention on the significance of privacy conditions for consumers. Now that these are recognised as a parameter of competition (see here, for example), is there a risk that exchanging information about planned changes to privacy conditions / other online trading T&Cs, or actually agreeing a common strategy for these could amount to a breach of Article 101 or its national equivalents? Or that an agreement between separate companies to adopt a common practice on such terms (in particular if it results in less protection for consumers) could amount to active collusion? These are open questions for now, but companies should remember that – while benchmarking is often sensible – they should ultimately take their own decisions, and keep their own counsel, about such matters.
Coincidentally, the consumer arm of the CMA has just closed an investigation into the online terms and conditions of cloud service providers following changes agreed by a number of companies. The closure statement notes that “the CMA remains interested in unfair terms and conditions, particularly in the digital economy”. It should not be assumed that this interest is limited only to the parts of the CMA responsible for enforcement of consumer laws…