Tag: competition

Signs of Commission’s Verticals Focus Emerge in VBER Evaluation Document

Posted on

by Becket McGrath, Sarah Long and Aakash Kumbhat

On 8 September 2020, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) published the results of its evaluation of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (‘VBER’) and associated guidelines in the form of a Staff Working Document. 

The 232 page document summarises evidence received by the Commission from businesses, their advisers, consumer bodies and national competition authorities (‘NCAs’) in response to its consultation on the operation of the current vertical agreements regime.  It also takes account of the findings of the Commission’s E-commerce sector inquiry, which ran from 2015 to 2017, and a detailed ‘evaluation support study’ that was conducted by external consultants.  Although the document is primarily concerned with pulling together the wide-ranging views received through this process, which has been running since 2018, it does contain some broad conclusions and an indication of its priorities for updating the verticals regime.

To read the full note, click here.

European Commission Consultation on New Competition Tool

Posted on
Justification for a New Competition Tool

Based on our experience of the operation of the UK market investigations regime, we agree that a new tool that goes beyond the options currently available to the Commission under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, and that enables the Commission to identify and tackle structural market issues, is likely to be a useful addition to the EU competition regime. As far as jurisdictional scope is concerned, however, while digital markets may be particularly prone to structural issues, and the need for rapid action may be greater, there is nothing inherently novel or ‘digital’ in the desirability of a ‘backstop’ regime that empowers an authority to take specific action if harms arise for which traditional antitrust tools are insufficient.

UK experience has demonstrated that, as well as being helpful for tackling issues in potentially oligopolistic markets (such as groceries or audit), such a tool can be valuable where markets are not functioning well due to wider factors, including the interplay with regulatory regimes (for example, rolling stock leasing, energy or private health care) or past government decisions (for example, airports). Each case will turn on its facts, however, justifying the need to individual assessments, within a clearly defined legal framework.

Our response to the European Commission Consultation

As lawyers qualified in the UK and Member States with significant expertise in advising clients on EU and UK competition law, our views also draw on personal experience of enforcing the UK competition regime gained by members of the firm while working for the UK Competition and Markets Authority and its predecessor, the Office of Fair Trading. Our hope is that this experience can provide useful pointers that may assist the Commission in the design of a new competition tool. To read our full response, click here.

An array of clusters and interlacing threads (Deep dive into other technologies)

Posted on

Legility and Euclid Law teamed up for a series of articles that will guide companies and their legal and compliance teams through the challenges of the Information Age.

In this fourth and last article in the series, “An array of clusters and interlacing threads (Deep dive into other technologies)”, written by Rebecca Cronin, Director at Legility (EMEA) and Marie Leppard, Partner at Euclid Law, we explore the use of culling and unsupervised learning technologies, like near-duplication, email threading and conceptual clustering. This fourth article will help you navigate through this array of powerful technologies and provides practical advice on how and when to use them.

To read the full article, click here.

Is it CAR, TAR, RAR….? (Deep dive into Predictive Coding)

Posted on

Inventus (EMEA) and Euclid Law teamed up for a series of articles that will guide companies and their legal and compliance teams through the challenges of the Information Age.

The third article in the series, “Is it CAR, TAR, RAR…? (Deep dive into Predictive Coding)”, written by Alex Woodrow, Director at Inventus (EMEA) and Marie Leppard, Partner at Euclid Law, explores the use of Predictive Coding in the world of compliance. This third article will help you navigate through the various models of predictive coding available and provides practical advice on how and when to use them.

To read the full article, click here.

Cross your Techs and Dot your AIs

Posted on

Inventus and Euclid Law have teamed up to write a series of articles highlighting what companies and their legal and compliance teams need to know about the use of technology in competition law as well as guiding on how to tackle each step and overcome the challenges that come with it.

The second article in the series, “Cross your Techs and Dot your AIs”, written by Rebecca Cronin, Director at Inventus (EMEA) and Marie Leppard, Partner at Euclid Law, explores the use of Artificial Intelligence in the world of compliance. The article will help you navigate through the various technologies available and provides sound and practical advice on how and when to use them.

To read the full article, click here.

For a Facts-Based Analysis of Uber’s Activities in the EU: Addressing Some Misconceptions

Posted on

Damien Geradin

Tilburg Law & Economics Center (TILEC); University College London – Faculty of Laws

Date Written: March 13, 2017

Abstract

While it has now been several years since Uber started its activities in Europe, it is striking that in most EU Member States there is still no regulatory framework allowing Uber and similar ridesharing companies to compete and deliver the efficiencies generated by their technology, while assuring that the public interest is guaranteed. Regulatory change is impeded by the emotional nature of the debate where new entrants like Uber are often characterised as villains, stealing business away from taxi companies and replacing “good jobs” with precarious ones. These allegations, which are largely based on misconceptions about Uber’s activities, prevent a constructive, forward-looking debate on how to take advantage of the major opportunities created by Uber and other companies offering online intermediation services in terms of user convenience, affordability and quality of service, road safety, and reduced urban congestion.

To read more and download full paper, please click here.