A UK appellate court has confirmed that a ban on authorised dealers’ online sales is a by-object infringement, and backed a ruling from the Competition Appeal Tribunal that distinguished the case from the Coty ruling.
France’s Competition Authority has decided that a dominant company’s acquisition of a rival cannot constitute an abuse of dominance in the absence of additional anticompetitive behaviour.
India’s competition watchdog has ordered its investigative arm to probe allegations that Amazon and Walmart-owned Flipkart engaged in exclusive arrangements, deep-discounting and preferential treatment on their platforms.
Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart would have turned 105 today. His definition of obscenity – “I know it when I see it” – has been passed down through the ages, but it is not to be overshadowed by his dissenting opinion in Citizen Publishing. There, he took issue with the court’s seven-to-one order finding that a joint operating agreement between two Arizona newspapers violated federal antitrust laws. Justice Stewart said the sole consistency he could find in litigation brought under section 7 of the Clayton Act is that “the government always wins.” Congress has since given newspapers antitrust exemptions for joint operating agreements.
A federal appellate court may be sympathetic to reviving the claims of two former LG employees that accused the company of having an illegal no-poach agreement with Samsung.
Khaitan & Co partner Anisha Chand and senior associate Soham Banerjee explore jurisdictional boundaries and the interplay between the Competition Act, 2002 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. While some contractual disputes ostensibly can be addressed by both laws, Chand and Banerjee identify the appropriate forum depending on the nature and scope of the dispute to ensure no overstepping of the legislative mandates. In this light, they have done a deep dive into the Competition Commission of India’s order in the Esaote case to assess whether such jurisdictional trespass has occurred and whether the case can be seen as a precedent to hold dominant companies accountable under the Competition Act, 2002 for a breach of contractual terms.
The head of the Netherlands’ antitrust enforcer has called for competition authorities to give more guidance to companies in the digital economy.
Plaintiff’s side law firm Hausfeld has teamed up with a public affairs consultancy to set up the Google Redress & Integrity Platform (GRIP), which aims to attract potential clients seeking redress against the technology company over its allegedly anti-competitive practices.
David Higbee, John Cove, Jessica Delbaum, Djordje Petkoski, Ryan Shores, Todd Stenerson and Mark Weiss
Tito Andrade, Maria Eugênia Novis de Oliveira and Marcos Paulo Verissimo
Fernando Carreño and Paloma Alcantra
Jesús Eloy Espinoza Lozada
Jacques Derenne and Dimitris Vallindas
Adina Claici and Elisa Pau
Connect with world leading experts at GCR Live