Adina Claici:
Anti-competitve exclusionary conduct in EU antitrust practice.
Yesterday at BECCLE we had a very interesting talk by Ms.
Adina Claici (PhD , Economist, member of the DG Competition on the EU
Commission) and concerning exclusionary practices, particularly on the topic of
rebates and loyalty.
Main comments:
On 2009 a Guidance Note on exclusionary practices was
enacted by the Commission incorporating an “effect based approach”. The focus
was shifted from the form of the practice towards the effect of the same in the
market. Anti-competitive effects have to be proven in accordance to the harm
theory.
The EU Commission has settled on the application of the
“efficient competitor test” to determine what practices are allowed or not. The
reason behind this choice is that EU does not protect inefficient competitors. The EU Commission protects competition but
not competitors.
Consistency needs to be ensured in the application of
articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU. Therefore, there is a need of applying same
standards to different practices to avoid firms choosing which practices to
enter into.
Efficiency has surged as a defence of dominant firms (art.
101 TFEU).
Case of Post Danmark 2012: application of the effect based
approach on exclusionary conduct. In this case it was proved that the price
offered to the costumers of the competitors was not below costs; hence, this is part of an efficient competitor
strategy. AIC<Price<ATC.
Specific forms of
abuse:
Exclusive dealing, tying and bundling, predation and refusal
to supply and margin squeeze. Exclusive dealing: AT&T case (USA). Exclusive dealings
can lead to the fact that a dominant firm may harm its competitors. In here
there are several opposing views: the Chicago school and the post Chicago
models. The Guidance document from the Commission states that the dominant
undertaking may hinder competition by settling exclusive purchasing obligations
and/or rebates.
Unavoidable trading partner “the must have brand”.
Margin squeeze is a common practice in the telecom industry
and requires an upstream and downstream market. It is very difficult to compare
price differences in practice.
Velux case (39.451):
this is a case that was closed without further actions by the Commission as it
was not found evidence of competition infringements.
This case deals with rebates and commercial practices by a
dominant undertaking in the market of roof windows. In principle, rebates are
not anti-competitive unless they foreclose an
efficient competitor. The efficient competitor test.
No formal complaint was filed against Velux but rather an
ex-officio investigation was opened.
In this market the elasticity of the demand is low because
the price of the roof window is already included in the total price of the
house. Hence, consumers are not price aware, but rather are willing to pay more
for a good quality roof window.
Velux operated in different markets by offering to their
distributors discounts and rebates in a complex scheme. There are several thresholds
and small increments in the discount percentages.
The analysis of the rebates scheme is based on the Guidance
Note. It distinguished between two different types of rebate schemes: retroactive and incremental rebates.
Retroactive rebates are those in which with the additional
purchasing of a new item over a certain threshold would trigger the application
of a percentage of discount over the total amount of purchases. The loyalty effect
of retroactive rebates is high and, therefore, may lead to anti-competitive
effects.
Incremental rebates would be those reductions in price that are
given in an “escalated” manner and affecting exclusively to the successive
purchases. Therefore, the loyalty effect they produce is much lower.
Rebates can be anti-competitive if: the discount percentages
are high and/or close to the profit margins of the sector. Retroactive effects
are likely to produce higher loyalty effect and oblige the purchaser to acquire
an additional unit from the dominant undertaking and not from the competitor.