Antitrust Enforcement Actions: December 2024

A. India????

1. CCI Dismisses Allegations of Anti-Competitive Practices Against Woodman Electronics

1. Facts: An individual (‘Informant’) filed information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, against Woodman Electronics India Private Limited (‘Opposite Party’), alleging anti-competitive conduct and unfair trade practices. The Opposite Party, engaged in selling aftermarket Chinese Android head units in India, was accused of concealing the Country of Origin (COO) on its products and using misleading marketing taglines, such as “India Ka Apna Brand,” falsely implying Indian origin. The Informant further claimed that such actions influenced consumer decisions and harmed competing brands like Sony, Blaupunkt, and Pioneer.

2. Allegations: The Informant alleged that Woodman Electronics:

• Engaged in anti-competitive practices by concealing COO on its products.
• Made false claims regarding product origin, misleading consumers through taglines and advertisements.
• Created unfair competition by misrepresenting its products as Indian-made while selling Chinese goods.
• Caused financial loss and dissatisfaction by selling inferior products under false pretenses, resulting in damages of approximately ?1 lakh.

The Informant sought an investigation, penalties, corrective measures (e.g., accurate COO disclosure, removal of false taglines), and compensation for damages.

3. Observations of the Commission: The Commission noted that:

• Sections 2(47) and 36A of the Competition Act were incorrectly cited by the Informant, as these sections do not exist under the Act.
• Enforcement of misleading advertisements under Section 21(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Authority established by the said Act.
• The car stereo market is highly competitive, with major global players like Sony, Panasonic, and Blaupunkt, along with unorganized market participants. Woodman Electronics, being a relatively new and small player, did not appear to have a dominant position.
• Since no relevant product market or geographic market was delineated by the Informant, and considering the competitive nature of the industry, the Commission concluded that there was no prima facie case of abuse of dominance.

4. Decision of the Commission: The Commission, under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, ordered the closure of the information, stating that no prima facie case of contravention under Section 4 was established against the Opposite Party. Additionally, it granted confidentiality to the Informant's identity and contact details for three years under Regulation 36(1) of the CCI (General) Regulations, 2024.

Click here to read the order.

2. No Penalty, But a Strong Warning: CCI Orders Table Tennis Bodies to Open Up Competition

1. Facts:

TT Friendly Super League Association (TTFSL), an NGO promoting table tennis in India, filed a complaint under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, against The Suburban Table Tennis Association (TSTTA), Maharashtra State Table Tennis Association (MSTTA), Table Tennis Federation of India (TTFI), and Gujarat State Table Tennis Association (GSTTA) for alleged anti-competitive practices. TTFSL alleged that the respondents issued restrictive communications and included anti-competitive clauses in their regulations to prevent players and clubs from participating in unaffiliated table tennis tournaments.

2. Allegations:

• TSTTA issued a WhatsApp advisory warning players, coaches, and clubs against participating in unaffiliated tournaments, threatening suspension or non-acceptance of entries.
• MSTTA and GSTTA imposed clauses in their regulations prohibiting players from participating in tournaments not recognized by them.
• TTFI maintained restrictive rules in its Memorandum of Association (MoA) that limited player and organizer freedom, discouraged private tournaments, and mandated approvals from affiliated associations.
• The restrictive conduct allegedly created barriers for new entrants and unfairly stifled competition in the organization of table tennis events.

3. Observations of the Commission:

• Relevant Markets: The Commission agreed with the Director General's (DG) findings that the relevant markets were (i) the market for organizing table tennis leagues/events/tournaments in India, and (ii) the market for provision of services by players for such events.
• Dominance: TTFI, as the apex body for table tennis in India, along with affiliated state and district associations (MSTTA, GSTTA, TSTTA), held a dominant position due to their exclusive regulatory authority and control over table tennis activities nationwide.
• Abuse of Dominance: The Commission found: TSTTA’s WhatsApp advisory restricted competition by preventing players from participating in private tournaments, violating Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(i), and 4(2)(c) of the Act. Clauses in the regulations of MSTTA, GSTTA, and TTFI that prohibited players from participating in unapproved events were anti-competitive and created entry barriers. TTFI’s public notice regarding the Gujarat Super League discouraged player participation, further restricting competition.
• Contraventions of Section 3: TSTTA's advisory amounted to an exclusive dealing arrangement and refusal to deal, contravening Sections 3(4)(c) and 3(4)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act.

4. Decision of the Commission:

The Commission directed all respondents to cease and desist from engaging in anti-competitive conduct. While the respondents had taken corrective actions by withdrawing restrictive communications and amending their regulations, the Commission refrained from imposing a monetary penalty, citing these efforts. However, it warned that any future violations would result in aggravated consequences, including potential personal liability for office bearers.

Click here to read the order.

3. CCI Dismisses InstaAstro's Complaint Against Astrotalk Over Poaching Allegations

1. Facts:

InstaAstro Technology Private Limited (‘Informant’) filed information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, against Astrotalk Services Private Limited (‘Opposite Party’) for alleged contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Both parties provide online astrology services via app-based platforms. The Informant alleged that Astrotalk engaged in anti-competitive practices by poaching its trained consultants, offering them significantly higher remuneration, and coercing them into breaking existing contracts with the Informant.

2. Allegations:

• Under Section 3: Astrotalk allegedly entered into restrictive agreements with consultants prohibiting them from contacting their previous employers. The Informant claimed that this conduct disrupted competition by coercing consultants to leave competitors, thereby reducing competitive opportunities in the market.
• Under Section 4: The Informant identified the relevant market as the ‘sale of astrology-related products and services provided by online platforms in India’ and asserted that Astrotalk was a dominant player, controlling 80% of the market, based on the public statements made by Astrotalk’s CEO.
• The Informant sought penalties, compensation for losses, and interim relief to prevent Astrotalk from further poaching its consultants.

3. Observations of the Commission:

• Regarding allegations under Section 3, the Commission observed that the issue primarily fell under contract law. Consultants, being independent entities, are free to offer their services to other platforms in exchange for better remuneration. Therefore, the alleged conduct could not be examined under the Competition Act.
• For allegations under Section 4, the Commission delineated the relevant market as ‘provision of astrology-related goods and services through online applications in India.’ However, the Informant did not provide any data or statistics to establish the dominance of Astrotalk.
• Based on publicly available information, the Commission noted the presence of several other online astrology platforms, such as Astrosage, Astroyogi, Clickastro, and Ganeshaspeaks, indicating a competitive market landscape.
• The Commission found that reliance on media statements by Astrotalk’s CEO claiming 80% market share was insufficient to prove dominance, as such statements are often promotional and cannot solely establish market power.

4. Decision of the Commission:

The Commission concluded that there was no prima facie evidence of contravention of Sections 3 or 4 of the Act. Accordingly, the case was dismissed under Section 26(2) of the Act, and no relief or further investigation was granted. The Commission emphasized that its decision did not affect any legal rights or remedies available to the Informant under other applicable laws.

Click here to read the order.

4. Competition Commission Rules No Abuse of Dominance by Bhagyanagar Gas

1. Facts:

M/s AGI Greenpac Limited (‘Informant’) filed a complaint under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, against M/s Bhagyanagar Gas Limited (‘Opposite Party’) for alleged abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Act. The Opposite Party is an authorized City Gas Distribution (CGD) entity under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) regulations for the Hyderabad region.

2. Allegations:

• The Informant alleged that Bhagyanagar Gas Limited:Charged excessively high prices for natural gas supplied under the Gas Sale Agreement (GSA) despite the cost to the Opposite Party being lower.Refused to enter into a Tri-partite Agreement that would allow the Informant to procure natural gas from a third party and use the Opposite Party’s pipeline infrastructure for transportation.Failed to provide transparency in price fixation by not sharing the details of the pricing mechanism as stipulated in the GSA.
• The Informant sought relief directing the Opposite Party to desist from charging excessive prices, ensure transparent pricing, and allow third-party gas procurement through its pipeline network.

3. Observations of the Commission:

• Relevant Market: The Commission defined the relevant market as the ‘market for supply of natural gas to consumers having requirement up to 50,000 SCMD of gas in Hyderabad,’ considering the regulatory framework and non-substitutability of natural gas supply for such consumers.
• Dominance: The Opposite Party was found to be a dominant player in the defined market due to its exclusive authorization to supply natural gas in Hyderabad.
• Allegation of Excessive Pricing: The Commission noted that comparing prices between different regions (Hyderabad and Bhongir) was not valid due to distinct market conditions, including varying tax structures and gas availability policies. It concluded that no merit existed in the allegation of excessive pricing.
• Tri-partite Agreement Refusal: The Commission observed that under the PNGRB Act, the Opposite Party had not been declared a ‘Common Carrier,’ and hence, it could not be mandated to allow third-party access to its pipeline network. Therefore, the refusal to enter into such an agreement was not anti-competitive.
• Transparency in Pricing: The Commission found that the alleged lack of transparency in price fixation pertained to a contractual dispute under the GSA and did not raise competition concerns. The Opposite Party’s refusal to disclose pricing details was linked to protecting its commercially sensitive information.

4. Decision of the Commission:

The Commission determined that no prima facie case of contravention of Section 4 was made out. Consequently, the matter was closed under Section 26(2) of the Act, and the Informant's request for interim relief was rejected. The Commission emphasized that the issues raised were contractual in nature and did not involve competition law violations.

5. Coal India Cleared of Unfair Trade Allegations in E-Auction by CCI

1. Facts:

The case was initiated by Mr. Bijay Poddar (‘Informant’) against Coal India Limited (‘CIL’/‘Opposite Party’), alleging abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. CIL is a ‘Maharatna’ Public Sector Undertaking and the largest coal-producing company in the world. The dispute arose from the introduction of CIL’s new 2022 E-Auction Scheme, replacing the earlier 2007 E-Auction Scheme, which the Informant claimed was unfair, discriminatory, and one-sided.

2. Allegations:

• Several clauses of the 2022 E-Auction Scheme, including those related to bid security, payment terms, refund policies, and dispute resolution, were alleged to be unfair and discriminatory.
• The Informant asserted that CIL unilaterally imposed harsh conditions without reciprocal responsibilities on itself, thus abusing its dominant position by creating unfair contract terms.
• Key allegations included:High and non-refundable bid security deposits.Non-transparent pricing and refund mechanisms.No corresponding penalties on CIL in case of non-delivery or cancellation of the auction.Complex procedures and lack of adequate timelines for complaint resolution.
• The Informant sought relief, including amendments to the scheme and penalties against CIL for violating the provisions of the Act.

3. Observations of the Commission:

1. Relevant Market and Dominance: The Commission defined the relevant market as the ‘production and sale of non-coking coal to bidders under the e-auction scheme in India’. It concluded that CIL holds a dominant position in this market due to its overwhelming market share (over 90% in coal e-auctions) and statutory monopoly on coal production in India.
2. Analysis of Clauses in the 2022 Scheme: The Commission examined key clauses and found:
3. No Abuse of Dominance: The Commission noted that most of the contested clauses either had reasonable justifications or had been amended to address earlier concerns. It did not find any evidence of abuse of dominant position by CIL under Section 4 of the Act.

4. Decision of the Commission:

The Commission concluded that there was no prima facie case of contravention of the Competition Act, and the matter was closed under Section 26(2) of the Act. No further investigation or relief was granted.

Click here to read the order.

B. United Kingdom????

6. CMA Investigates Alleged Bid-Rigging in UK Roofing Contracts

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has initiated an investigation into alleged bid-rigging by companies providing roofing and construction services, particularly for contracts under the government’s Condition Improvement Fund (CIF). The CMA suspects collusion among contractors and technical advisors to manipulate bids and secure contracts illegally.

As part of the investigation, the CMA conducted unannounced inspections at several business premises to collect evidence, including documents and digital records. The Department for Education (DfE) is collaborating with the CMA in this process.

If sufficient evidence is found, the CMA may issue a statement of objections outlining its concerns. However, this does not imply that any laws have been broken at this stage. Public procurement, a significant area of public expenditure, is especially vulnerable to anti-competitive practices, and the CMA is actively addressing these risks.

The timing of the investigation coincides with the upcoming debarment regime in February 2025, which could ban firms that violate competition laws from bidding on public contracts. This would be in addition to existing penalties, such as financial fines and director disqualifications.

Click here to read the press release.

C. Canada????

7. RONA to Divest Facility Amid Competition Bureau’s Concerns Over All-Fab Acquisition

The Competition Bureau of Canada has reached a consent agreement with RONA Inc. to address competition concerns stemming from its proposed acquisition of All-Fab Building Components. The Bureau's review determined that the transaction would likely lead to a substantial lessening of competition in the design, supply, and manufacturing of roof and floor trusses for housing construction in the Saskatoon, Saskatchewan area. This reduction in competition was expected to result in higher prices and fewer choices for customers.

To address these concerns, RONA has agreed to divest its truss manufacturing facility in Martensville, Saskatchewan, to an independent purchaser approved by the Commissioner of Competition. The Bureau has deemed this divestiture sufficient to mitigate the competition concerns associated with the acquisition.

Click here to read the press release.

D. France????

8. Household appliances: €611 million in fines imposed on 12 companies for vertical price fixing

Facts: The Autorité de la concurrence imposed fines totaling €611 million on ten manufacturers and two distributors of household appliances for engaging in vertical price-fixing practices. These agreements, in place from February 2007 to December 2014, aimed to maintain artificially high retail prices, particularly in response to competition from emerging online distributors. The fined companies included major players like BSH, Candy Hoover, Electrolux, LG, Whirlpool, SEB, Miele, and distributors Darty and Boulanger.

Allegations:

• The manufacturers and distributors allegedly collaborated to fix resale prices, ensuring uniform pricing across different distribution channels.
• Online distributors accused the manufacturers of implementing selective distribution systems and requiring brick-and-mortar stores to be eligible for distribution, thereby excluding online-only sellers.
• Distributors such as Darty and Boulanger were reported to have actively monitored and enforced adherence to the pricing policies, sometimes demanding compensation when prices differed significantly between channels.
• The Autorité alleged that this practice eliminated intra-brand competition and harmed both consumers and smaller distributors by restricting price competition.

Observations of the Autorité:

• Communication of Pricing Instructions: Manufacturers used coded language to communicate price expectations to distributors, ensuring compliance through close monitoring.
• Retaliatory Measures: Distributors that failed to adhere to the pricing policies were subject to retaliatory actions, including delayed deliveries and blocked sales of certain products.
• Role of Major Distributors: Darty and Boulanger played a central role in enforcing the price-fixing arrangements by exerting pressure on manufacturers and smaller competitors to maintain price uniformity.
• Impact on the Market: The Autorité highlighted the serious nature of these practices, noting that they disadvantaged consumers by preventing access to competitive prices and weakened smaller distributors. The practices contributed to the decline of online-only distributors, with an estimated 95% of them disappearing during the period under investigation.

Decision of the Autorité:

• Fines amounting to €611 million were imposed on the companies involved. Ten of the twelve companies opted for the settlement procedure, resulting in reduced fines for acknowledging the facts.
• The Autorité also mandated that a summary of the decision be published in major newspapers, including Le Monde and Les Echos.
• An objection concerning a potential horizontal agreement among manufacturers was dismissed as the exchange of information was not deemed strategic or impactful on market competition.

Click here to read the press release.

9. Outbrain-Teads Deal Approved: Boost for Non-Search Advertising Sector

The Autorité de la concurrence has cleared the merger between Outbrain, a specialist in content recommendation ads, and Teads, a subsidiary of the Altice group focused on video and non-video brand advertising, without conditions. This decision marks the first time the Autorité has examined the non-search-related online advertising sector in a merger control case.

The Autorité analyzed two main markets:

1. Non-Search-Related Online Advertising Services: It distinguished between search-related and non-search-related advertising and concluded that the merger would not harm competition due to the parties' limited market shares and the presence of strong competitors.
2. Intermediation Services for Non-Search-Related Online Advertising: The analysis differentiated between demand-side platforms (DSPs) and supply-side platforms (SSPs) at the European Economic Area (EEA) level. Here, too, the Autorité found no competition concerns.

The Autorité noted that the merger could foster competition against major digital players by combining Outbrain’s content recommendation expertise with Teads’ brand advertising capabilities.

Click here to read the press release.

E. Hong Kong????

10. Competition Commission Penalizes HKC HK$10.96 Million for Bid Rigging

The Hong Kong Competition Commission has announced that Hong Kong Commercial Cleaning Services Limited (HKC) admitted liability and agreed to a penalty of HK$10.96 million for engaging in cartel conduct. This stems from an investigation into alleged collusion in bidding for cleansing service contracts for the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA).

The investigation revealed that between May 2016 and August 2018, HKC and another company, Man Shun Hong Kong & Kln Cleaning Company Limited (MS), exchanged commercially sensitive information, resulting in price fixing for 17 HA contracts worth approximately HK$180 million.

HKC and two of its directors, Ms. Chan Ming Chu and Mr. Cheng Yip Chiu, signed a Statement of Agreed Facts on December 6, 2024, acknowledging their contravention of the First Conduct Rule (FCR) of the Competition Ordinance. The legal proceedings against the companies and individuals were initiated in December 2021 following a complaint from cleaning workers and others.

Click here to read the press release.

F. Italy????

11. Booking.com Agrees to Commitments Ensuring Hotel Pricing Autonomy

The Italian Competition Authority has closed its investigation into Booking.com (Italia) Srl, Booking.com BV, and Booking.com International BV after accepting their proposed commitments to address concerns of abuse of dominance. The inquiry centered on practices limiting the ability of Italian hotel facilities to set different rates on booking.com compared to other online sales channels, particularly through programs like Preferred Partner, Preferred Plus, and Booking Sponsored Benefit.

These programs allegedly restricted pricing autonomy by offering enhanced visibility in exchange for higher commission fees and competitive pricing on booking.com. Booking.com’s practices also included unapproved discounting to align offers on its platform with the best available online rates.

In response, Booking.com submitted commitments ensuring pricing strategies on other platforms would not influence participation or operation in these programs. It also committed to improving transparency, including clear communication with partners about program operations and providing regular statistical data.

The Authority concluded that these commitments protect the commercial autonomy of accommodation facilities, foster competition among online travel agencies (OTAs), and enhance informed decision-making for participating establishments.

Click here to read the press release.

12. Major Copper Cable Producers Face Antitrust Investigation in Italy

The Italian Competition Authority has launched an investigation into Bruno Baldassari & F.lli S.p.A., General Cavi S.p.A., ICEL S.c.p.A., IRCE S.p.A., La Triveneta Cavi S.p.A., Mondini Cavi S.p.A., Pecso Cavi S.r.l., Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Italia S.r.l., and the Associazione Italiana Industrie Cavi e Conduttori Elettrici (AICE) for an alleged anti-competitive agreement in the production and sale of low-voltage copper cables.

The Authority alleges that since 2005, these companies coordinated to align list prices and initial discounts offered to distributors. By 2008, they reportedly established a unified pricing adjustment mechanism, known as the "Sales System," to respond to copper raw material price fluctuations, facilitated by AICE.

The investigation follows a leniency application from one of the companies, seeking reduced sanctions in exchange for cooperation. On-site inspections were conducted at the offices of the involved parties, two multi-brand copper cable distributors, and the National Federation of Wholesale Distributors of Electrical Material (FME), with assistance from the Special Antitrust Unit of the Guardia di Finanza.

Click here to read the press release.

G. Netherlands????

13. Dutch Authority Assists Romanian Probe into Sports Goods Antitrust Violations

The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has assisted the Romanian Competition Council (RCC) in an investigation into alleged illegal agreements in the sports goods sector. The RCC conducted dawn raids at the premises of three companies, including one located in the Netherlands.

The investigation focuses on suspected restrictions imposed by a sports goods supplier on a distributor, limiting the sale of the supplier’s products to specific retailers. Such practices violate competition rules, as suppliers are not allowed to dictate the customers to whom their buyers sell.

The RCC is continuing its investigation into the matter.

Click here to read the press release.

H. Australia????

14. Google’s dominance in general search yet to be disrupted

Google remains the dominant search engine in Australia, holding a market share of nearly 94% as of August 2024, according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) ninth Digital Platform Services Inquiry report. Despite the emergence of generative AI and new AI-powered search features from competitors like Microsoft Bing, Google's position has seen little disruption, with Bing capturing only 4.7% of the market.

The report highlights Google’s continued advantage through commercial pre-installation agreements and its ownership of the Chrome browser. While generative AI is evolving, its impact on general search market dynamics has been limited so far. Both Google and Microsoft are well-positioned to integrate AI into their search offerings due to their substantial resources and partnerships in the generative AI supply chain.

The report also examines trends impacting search quality, such as increased ad prominence, the personalisation of results, and the influence of AI-generated content on search experiences. Consumers are increasingly critical of ad-heavy interfaces and the accuracy of AI-generated search results.

International regulatory developments, including a US ruling against Google for monopolistic practices and new EU measures under the Digital Markets Act, are shaping the global competition landscape for digital platforms.

Click here to read the press release.

15. ACCC updates immunity policy for cartel conduct

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has updated its Immunity and Cooperation Policy for Cartel Conduct. The revisions aim to enhance transparency and provide greater clarity for applicants regarding the administration and requirements of the immunity program.

Click here to read the press release.

I. Portugal????

16. AdC warns of competition risks regarding access to generative AI models

The Portuguese Competition Authority (AdC) has published its second short paper in a series on AI, focusing on access to AI models and competition. It emphasizes the critical role of foundation models—used to build specialized generative AI models—in fostering competition and innovation. Access to these foundation models varies, with some being more open than others, typically through gated access like APIs and web interfaces.

Open foundation models enable greater flexibility for downstream AI developers, encouraging innovation and competition by allowing third parties to adapt models and create diverse applications. However, ecosystems around open models can also lead to market concentration due to network effects.

The paper warns of potential anticompetitive strategies, including lock-in tactics where initially open models may later become restricted. It also highlights risks posed by foundation model developers and cloud providers leveraging their positions to hinder competition.

Ensuring equitable access to foundation models is crucial for promoting competition and delivering benefits to consumers in the evolving generative AI market.

Click here to read the press release.

J. Greece????

17. HCC Investigates Potential Antitrust Breaches in Coffee and Nutrition Markets

The Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC) conducted unannounced inspections on December 17th and 18th at a company involved in the supply, trading, wholesale, and retail of coffee, chocolate, and infant nutrition products. The investigation pertains to potential anti-competitive horizontal and/or vertical agreements and possible abuse of a dominant position, which could breach Articles 1 and 2 of Greece's Law 3959/2011 and Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

These inspections are a preliminary step, and the HCC has emphasized that they do not imply any conclusive findings of anti-competitive behavior or prejudge the investigation’s outcome.

Click here to read the press release.

18. HCC Fines Infant Product Companies €314K for Resale Price Maintenance

The Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC), through its unanimous Decision no. 870/2024, accepted settlement proposals from Skarmoutsos, Pharmex, and Peramax for their involvement in resale price maintenance practices. This behavior breached Article 1 of Law 3959/2011 and Article 101 TFEU, resulting in total fines of €314,389, distributed as follows:

• Skarmoutsos: €108,253
• Pharmex: €108,253
• Peramax: €40,314

Key Details:

The case focused on resale price maintenance in the markets for:

1. Breast pumps and related accessories
2. Baby feeding and mouth products (e.g., bottles, pacifiers)
3. Strollers and infant car seats

These companies, as part of their vertical agreements, monitored retail prices and pressured retailers to comply with the set prices—a hardcore restriction of competition. Settlement proposals were submitted under HCC Decision no. 790/2022, leading to reduced fines for the infringing companies.

Click here to read the press release.

19. 18 Companies Fined for Bid-Rigging in National Cadastre Project

The Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC) has imposed fines totaling €1,081,339.64 on 18 companies for bid-rigging practices in the market for cadastral survey services. The investigation revealed collusion among companies to allocate 28 cadastral survey projects, with predetermined lowest bids, from 2013 to 2020.

The involved companies engaged in a horizontal market-sharing agreement, violating Articles 1 of Law 3959/2011 and 101 TFEU. One company received full immunity under the Leniency Program, while the remaining 17 companies settled, receiving a 15% reduction in fines for cooperation.

Click here to read the press release.

K. Singapore????

20. CCCS Imposes Combined $9.99M Penalty on Flex Connect and Tarkus for Bid-Rigging

The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) has issued an Infringement Decision against Flex Connect Pte Ltd (formerly Facility Link Pte Ltd) and Tarkus Interiors Pte Ltd for bid-rigging, a serious violation of the Competition Act 2004. The investigation revealed collusive practices in 12 tenders for interior fit-out construction services across various non-residential properties in Singapore.

Investigations and Findings:

• CCCS’s investigation, launched in November 2020, uncovered bid-rigging activities that occurred over a five-year period (August 2016 – August 2021).
• The collusive conduct led to 12 tenders valued between $187,000 and $7,700,000, totaling approximately $34,110,000.
• One Party would be designated as the winner while the other would submit a higher bid, eliminating genuine competition.

Financial Penalties:

• Flex Connect Pte Ltd: $4,885,263
• Tarkus Interiors Pte Ltd: $5,113,918
• Total Penalty: $9,999,182

Key Takeaways:

• CCCS applied a leniency discount to Flex Connect Pte Ltd due to its early admission and cooperation in the investigation.
• The conduct significantly undermined competition, potentially leading to higher costs for customers and a lack of genuine competitive offers.

Click here to read the press release.

L. USA????

21. FTC Pushes for Scrutiny of Improper Drug Patent Listings to Enhance Competition

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower district court order against pharmaceutical maker Teva, requiring the drugmaker to delist several asthma inhaler patents from the FDA’s Orange Book. This decision follows a case brought by Teva against Amneal, which sought FDA approval to market a generic version of the asthma inhaler ProAir HFA. The FTC had previously filed amicus briefs urging the delisting of Teva’s patents, arguing they were improperly listed, potentially harming competition by delaying or deterring the introduction of cheaper generic alternatives. This case is part of broader FTC efforts to challenge improper patent listings in the Orange Book, impacting a range of drug categories, including inhalers and other devices such as epinephrine autoinjectors and diabetes and weight loss drugs.

The Orange Book, maintained by the FDA, lists drug products approved as safe and effective. Patents listed in the Orange Book may lead to a 30-month statutory stay, which can block the introduction of competing drug products, including lower-cost generics. Improper listings in the Orange Book may negatively impact competition, as highlighted by the FTC’s recent policy statement, which emphasizes the agency’s scrutiny of such listings to ensure competitive conditions and prevent artificially high drug prices.

Click here to read the press release.

22. FTC and DOJ Withdraw Guidelines for Collaboration Among Competitors

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division (DOJ) have jointly announced the withdrawal of the Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors (Collaboration Guidelines), initially issued in April 2000. The withdrawal highlights that these guidelines no longer provide reliable guidance for assessing the legality of competitor collaborations. Both agencies emphasize a case-by-case approach to antitrust enforcement, as such collaborations can potentially harm competition and undermine the competitive process. Businesses are advised to consult relevant statutes and case law when considering collaborations involving competitors.

Click here to read the press release.

23. FTC Sues Southern Glazer’s for Illegal Price Discrimination

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a lawsuit against Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits, LLC (Southern), alleging violations of the Robinson-Patman Act through discriminatory pricing practices. The FTC claims Southern has harmed small, independent retailers by offering significantly lower prices to large national and regional chains, such as Total Wine & More and Costco, while charging higher prices to independent businesses. This price discrimination creates an uneven playing field, impeding competition and harming consumer choice and pricing. Southern’s pricing mechanisms include quantity discounts and rebates inaccessible to smaller competitors, significantly disadvantaging them. The FTC seeks to ensure a fair marketplace where all businesses, regardless of size, can compete equitably.

Click here to read the press release.

24. Justice Department Challenges Tencent's Board Interlock with Epic Games

The Justice Department has announced that two directors appointed by Tencent Holdings Ltd. (Tencent) have resigned from the Epic Games Inc. (Epic) board following concerns about their dual board membership violating Section 8 of the Clayton Act. Tencent, which holds a minority stake in Epic, also decided to amend its shareholder agreement, relinquishing its future rights to appoint directors or observers to Epic’s board.

This action is part of the DOJ’s ongoing efforts to enforce Section 8, which seeks to prevent interlocks between companies that could reduce competition. Tencent, a major global multimedia and video game company based in China, owns a majority stake in Riot Games, another gaming competitor to Epic.

Click here to read the press release.

M. Brazil????

25. International Pharma Cartel: CADE Recommends Fines for Boehringer Ingelheim and TransoPharm

The Office of the Superintendent General of CADE (SG) has recommended convicting four companies and three individuals involved in an international cartel related to the production and distribution of scopolamine N-butylbromide (SNBB), a substance used in antispasmodic drugs. The cartel, active from the 1990s to 2019, engaged in price-fixing, production limits, and barriers to entry for new competitors. These practices were designed to protect geographic markets, preferred customers, and control over the market.

CADE's investigation revealed systematic exchanges of sensitive information and frequent in-person and email coordination among cartel members. Cease-and-desist agreements were signed with Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG and TransoPharm Handels GmbH, resulting in BRL 24.4 million in financial contributions. The case will now proceed to CADE’s Tribunal for adjudication, where convicted parties could face fines of up to 20% of their turnover, with individuals liable for fines up to 20% of the company's penalty.

Click here to read the press release.

26. CADE launches investigation into Brazilian forklift market

The Office of the Superintendent General of CADE (SG/CADE) has initiated an investigation into alleged antitrust violations in Brazil's forklift market and related labor market. The case involves 11 companies and current and former managers accused of engaging in horizontal agreements, including sharing commercially sensitive information, cover bidding, trade show advertising restrictions, and no-poach agreements.

The investigation stems from evidence provided through Leniency Agreement No. 01/2022, the 107th such agreement under Brazil's Competition Defense System. If convicted, companies face fines of 0.1% to 20% of their turnover, while individuals may be fined BRL 50,000 to BRL 2 billion. Managers could also be liable for 1% to 20% of corporate fines. The case will proceed through CADE’s administrative process, culminating in a decision by its Tribunal.

Click here to read the press release.

27. CADE Convicts 5 Companies and 5 Individuals for Pharmaceutical Bid-Rigging

The Tribunal of Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) convicted five companies and five individuals for bid-rigging and price-fixing in the pharmaceutical sector. The fines imposed exceed BRL 50 million, with companies fined over BRL 45 million and individuals over BRL 6 million.

The case stemmed from evidence gathered by the Federal Prosecution Services of Minas Gerais through telephone tapping and search and seizure operations. The cartel, active between 2007 and 2011, operated across multiple states, including Minas Gerais, S?o Paulo, Bahia, and Pernambuco. It involved direct price-fixing among pharmaceutical companies and collusion facilitated by distributors in a hub-and-spoke arrangement.

CADE has notified prosecution services in several states to address the negative societal impacts caused by the cartel’s anticompetitive practices.

Click here to read the press release.

28. Brazil’s Fuel Retailers Face Conviction for Price-Fixing and Sensitive Data Sharing

The Office of the Superintendent General (SG/CADE) has recommended the conviction of fuel stations in Brazil’s Federal District for engaging in cartel practices and exchanging competitively sensitive information. If convicted by the Tribunal of CADE, companies may face fines up to 20% of their gross turnover, with administrators subject to fines up to 20% of the company’s penalty.

The case began after the Chamber of Deputies of the Federal District filed a report, leading CADE to conduct economic studies and uncover cartel activities in the fuel market. Operation Dubai in 2015, a joint effort by CADE, the Federal Police, and the Federal District Prosecution Services (MPDFT), revealed evidence through intercepted communications and search warrants.

CADE imposed a BRL 90 million fine in a 2017 Cease and Desist Agreement with the companies, mandating corporate restructuring and divestments. Subsequent investigations found coordinated price increases among fuel retailers, prompting the SG to recommend conviction and submit the case to the Tribunal for final adjudication.

Click here to read the press release.

N. Japan????

29. JFTC Study Focuses on Protecting Artists and Performers in Content Industry

The Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) is addressing antitrust issues in Japan's creative industries, including music, broadcasting, and other entertainment fields. This initiative focuses on correcting unfair trade practices that hinder individual creators from receiving appropriate earnings and fully realizing their potential.

Key actions by the JFTC include the 2018 “Report of Study Group on Human Resource and Competition Policy” and the 2019 publication, “Examples of Practices in the Entertainment Sector That May Violate the Antimonopoly Act.” More recently, under the Content Industry Revitalization Strategy of 2024, the JFTC conducted a market study on contracts and transactions between artists, actors, and entertainment agencies.

The study aims to prevent the abuse of superior bargaining positions and promote a fair transactional environment, ensuring Japan's creative assets, such as music, broadcasting, and film, continue to thrive.

Click here to read the press release.