Each of the past few years' editions of The Dominance and Monopolies Review has observed rapid development in abuse of dominance rules. If anything, the past year has seen more developments than ever before, including loud calls for an overhaul of antitrust rules to address perceived challenges raised by the digital economy.

Professor Carl Shapiro argues 'we need to reinvigorate antitrust enforcement in the United States'. US presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren claims that 'competition is dying. Consolidation and concentration are on the rise in sector after sector. Concentration threatens our markets, threatens our economy, and threatens our democracy. Evidence of the problem is everywhere'. Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stiglitz contends that 'current antitrust laws, as they are enforced and have been interpreted, are not up to the task of ensuring a competitive marketplace'.

Against this background, governments have commissioned several thoughtful reports on whether competition law should be reformed. These include, in the UK, a report entitled Competition in Digital Markets, by a committee chaired by Professor Jason Furman; in the EU, a report entitled Competition Policy in the Era of Digitisation, written by Professors Heike Schweitzer, Jacques Crémer and Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye; and in Germany, a report entitled Modernising the Law on Abuse of Market Power, by Schweitzer and others. In parallel, greater regulation of the digital sector is already underway through, for example, the General Data Protection Regulation in Europe (which has triggered calls in the US to adopt a comparable framework); an EU platform-to-business regulation; and digital services taxes in France and the UK.

But even as these reports and regulations discuss and formulate new rules, the case law and decisional practice on abuse of dominance has continued to evolve as well. For example, in the EU, the courts reached notable decisions in MEO, Servier and Slovak Telekom, while the Commission continued its active enforcement in cases such as Google Android, Qualcomm and Google AdSense for Search. In the US, the Supreme Court reached its long-awaited decision in American Express, while the Californian District Court found that Qualcomm had violated antitrust laws in the landmark judgment of FTC v. Qualcomm. In Germany, the Federal Cartel Office identified a novel abuse concerning Facebook's terms and conditions relating to its use of user data. And in China, Brazil, Japan, the UK and other countries, authorities and courts reached several notable decisions – and continue to pursue investigations – in the pharmaceutical sector.

The seventh edition of The Dominance and Monopolies Review provides a welcome overview for busy practitioners and businesses who need an accessible and easily understandable summary of global abuse of dominance rules. As with previous years, each chapter – authored by a specialist local expert – summarises the abuse of dominance rules in a jurisdiction; provides a review of the regime's enforcement activity in the past year; and sets out a prediction for future developments. From those thoughtful contributions, we identify three themes in 2018 enforcement.

Scrutiny of digital platforms

Digital platforms continue to come under intense antitrust scrutiny. As discussed in the EU chapter, in the Android case, the Commission fined Google a record-breaking €4.34 billion for imposing allegedly illegal restrictions on Android device manufacturers. Finding Android dominant in a market that excludes Apple, the Commission claims that Google's pre-installation of its search and browser apps prevents users accessing rival services and forecloses competition. The Commission kept up its focus on Google by also fining it €1.49 billion in a separate case relating to alleged exclusivity clauses in contracts with third-party websites (AdSense for Search).

Perhaps even more strikingly, in Germany, the Federal Cartel Office found that Facebook's terms and conditions relating to its collection of user data constitute an exploitative abuse of dominance. Specifically, the Federal Cartel Office – relying on German law principles that a breach of fundamental rights can constitute an abuse of dominance – held that Facebook committed an abuse by combining data from different sources (such as WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook) without satisfactory user consent. Contrary to some reports, the case was therefore not about the amount of data Facebook collected. Rather, it concerned whether it was lawful for Facebook to combine users' Facebook profiles with data from, for example, WhatsApp without effective user consent.

Interestingly, Commissioner Margrethe Vestager has stated that the Facebook decision could not 'serve as a template' for EU action because the case 'sits in the zone between competition law and privacy'. That reflects case law from the European Court of Justice in Asnef that 'issues relating to the sensitivity of personal data are not, as such, a matter for competition law, they may be resolved on the basis of the relevant provisions governing data protection'. Likewise, in its Facebook/WhatsApp decision, the Commission stated that 'privacy-related concerns flowing from the increased concentration of data within the control of Facebook as a result of the transaction do not fall within the scope of the EU competition law rules but within the scope of the EU data protection rules'.

Several of the Policy Reports mentioned above recommend stricter regulation of online platforms, and establishing a set of 'pro-competition' ex ante rules (in line with calls made by economics professor Jean Tirole for 'participative antitrust'). This may have some benefits over a reliance only on ex post enforcement. If designed in cooperation with stakeholders, such ex ante rules may enhance consumer welfare better than enforcement in individual cases. But there is a concern about proliferation of unharmonised initiatives in various jurisdictions: online platforms are typically active internationally. They must comply with rules in all countries where they are active, and have to take into account the combined effect of practice codes, platform regulation and reinforced competition enforcement. If they face a combination of policies to make it easier to find intra-platform dominance, impose stricter rules for unilateral conduct, reintroduce form-based abuse principles (or reverse the burden of proof, requiring defendants to prove absence of anticompetitive effects), eliminate a requirement to show consumer harm, show greater tolerance of over-enforcement and 'false positives' – all examples of policy recommendations – the cumulative effect may be stifling.

This concern is even more pressing when combined with procedural proposals to speed up proceedings and make appeals more difficult. While it makes sense to accelerate proceedings and – where appropriate – use interim measures more widely and wisely, this should not be at the expense of due process and the rule of law.

On the other side of the Atlantic, in terms of digital platforms, the past year was notable for the US Supreme Court's decision in Ohio v. American Express. As discussed in the US chapter, that case will have significant implications for future monopolisation cases in multi-sided markets. The Supreme Court held that 'anti-steering provisions' in American Express's contracts – which prohibit merchants from encouraging customers to use credit cards other than American Express by, for example, stating that the merchant prefers Visa or Mastercard – do not violate antitrust laws. Importantly, the Court held that competitive effects on both sides of the market need to be considered (merchants and cardholders) when assessing overall effects on competition: identifying a price rise on one side of the market is insufficient to prove anticompetitive effects – one needs to consider the overall effect on the platform as a whole. In this respect, the decision is consistent with the European Court of Justice's Cartes Bancaires decision, which finds that it is always necessary to take into consideration interactions between 'the two facets of a two-sided system'.

Focus on pharmaceutical sector

There is a continued focus on the pharmaceutical sector, through a variety of different cases covering both exploitative and exclusionary abuses. In the UK, for example, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) quashed the Competition and Market Authority's (CMA) landmark 2016 decision to fine Pfizer and Flynn £90 million for charging excessive prices for phenytoin sodium tablets (an anti-epileptic drug), discussed in the UK chapter. The CMA had considered that overnight price increases of 2,600 per cent after the drug was de-branded were excessive and broke competition rules. The CAT found that the CMA applied the wrong legal test for identifying excessive prices. It failed to identify the appropriate economic value of the drug. It also wrongly ignored the price of comparable products, such as the price for phenytoin sodium capsules. Unsurprisingly, the CMA has expressed disappointment with the judgment and is appealing it before the Court of Appeal. The CMA has other excessive pricing cases in the pharmaceutical industry in the pipeline and the direction of those cases may turn on the outcome of the appeal proceedings. Given the increase in exploitative abuses in Europe – with cases at the EU Commission, Germany, France and Italy – there is keen interest in the appeal, and the EU Commission has applied to intervene.

There is enforcement activity in pharmaceuticals outside the sphere of excessive pricing. In its Remicade case, the CMA issued a notable no grounds for action decision after issuing a statement of objections, finding that Merck's volume-based discount scheme was not likely to limit competition from biosimilar products. In Servier, by contrast, the EU General Court upheld much of the Commission's findings that pay-for-delay agreements between Servier and generic manufacturers relating to its blockbuster drug perindopril constituted restrictions by object contrary to Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The judgment is noteworthy for abuse of dominance, however, for three main reasons:

  1. The judgment – coming in at 1,968 detailed paragraphs – illustrates how the General Court is increasingly subjecting Commission decisions to extremely detailed and thorough judicial review.
  2. The Court annulled the Article 102 of the TFEU part of the Commission's decision due to errors in the market definition – one of the very few cases where the Commission has not prevailed on market definition at the court level.
  3. When assessing the anticompetitive effects of the conduct, the Court held it would be 'paradoxical' to permit the Commission to limit its assessment to likely future effects in a situation where the alleged abusive conduct has been implemented and its actual effects can be observed. In this respect, the judgment is consistent with Mr Justice Roth's observation in Streetmap that he would 'find it difficult in practical terms to reconcile a finding that conduct had no anticompetitive effect at all with a conclusion that it was nonetheless reasonably likely to have such an effect'.
Standard-essential patents

The third theme of 2018's enforcement is the continued global focus on the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs) on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, especially around Qualcomm's licensing practices. In 2015, China's National Development and Reform Commission fined Qualcomm US$975 million for failing to license its SEPs according to its FRAND promise. In December 2016, the Korean Fair Trade Commission followed suit, fining Qualcomm US$854 million. In January 2018, the EU Commission fined Qualcomm €997 million for making significant payments to Apple on the condition that Apple would not buy baseband chipsets from rivals. And most recently, Judge Koh issued her decision in the FTC v. Qualcomm (discussed in the US chapter) finding that Qualcomm violated antitrust laws.

In the US case, the FTC alleged that Qualcomm would only supply its modem chips to mobile phone manufacturers that agreed to a Qualcomm patent licence requiring the customer to pay royalties to Qualcomm even when using modem chips bought from Qualcomm's rivals. The FTC claimed this 'no licence, no chips' policy imposed an anticompetitive tax on competing chips. In her opinion, Judge Koh reached several notable findings:

  1. The 'no licence, no chips' policy is anticompetitive.
  2. Qualcomm's provision of incentive funds to manufacturers such as Apple constituted de facto exclusive deals that were also anticompetitive.
  3. Qualcomm's refusal to license its SEPs to other chip suppliers violates its FRAND commitments and is anticompetitive, too. The Court also found that Qualcomm's refusal to license is tantamount to an anticompetitive refusal to deal because it was the termination of a prior, voluntary and profitable course of dealing.
  4. Qualcomm's royalties for its SEPs are unreasonably high. In particular, Qualcomm's contributions to the standards do not justify its high rates and its SEPs do not drive handset value (and so taking a percentage of handset value is inappropriate).

Overall, the combined effect of these practices was to cause the exit of, or to foreclose, rival chip manufacturers, raise prices for chips, and to slow innovation. The judgment was scant comfort for the many competitors that have, in the meantime, left the modem market, but is important as a benchmark for licensing of SEPs for 5G and the internet of things. The proceedings were remarkable in that they led to an unusual juxtaposition between the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division (led by Makan Delrahim, a former lobbyist for Qualcomm who is recused from any case involving Qualcomm but who has clocked up a high number of speeches in favour of the SEP owners' position) and the US Federal Trade Commission, which was deadlocked and thus allowed the legal proceedings to continue to judgment.

As in previous years, we would like to thank the contributors for taking time away from their busy practices to prepare insightful and informative contributions to this seventh edition of The Dominance and Monopolies Review. We look forward to seeing what the next year holds.

Maurits Dolmans and Henry Mostyn
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
London
June 2019