Chapter II prohibition meaning

Is there an actionable claim? Note: private competition claims are predominantly governed by national law, and procedural as well as substantive rules differ markedly across the EU; accordingly, when planning competition litigation, assessments will need to be made for each individual jurisdiction. Possible causes of action Assess whether UK competition law has been breached (or EU competition law where the period predates the end of the Brexit transition period). Determine if the loss arises from an agreement or concerted practice between undertakings, particularly between competitors (see further, The prohibition on restrictive agreements). Evaluate whether an undertaking that is arguably dominant—typically indicated by a substantial share of a relevant market—caused the loss through abusive conduct contrary to Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 (and/or Article 102 TFEU if before the end of the Brexit transition period) (see further, The prohibition on abuse of dominance). Consider whether other national or foreign competition laws have...

Private actions CAT grants CPO in PC games class action The CAT has delivered its judgment in Vicki Shotbolt Class Representative v Valve Corporation, a claim for damages issued by Vicki Shotbolt Class Representative (PCR), under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998, against Valve Corporation (Valve), asserting that Valve abused its dominant position, in breach of Article 101 TFEU (up to 31 December 2020) and the Chapter II prohibition of the Competition Act 1998. Background The claim revolves around Valve’s running of Steam, a prominent digital distribution platform for PC video games, via which titles are almost exclusively supplied in digital form...

Private actions CAT issues judgment concerning class action finding Apple abused its dominant position in iOS app distribution and in-app payment services The Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled in Dr Rachael Kent v Apple Inc. and Apple Distribution International, a collective claim brought by Dr Rachael Kent against Apple Inc. and Apple Distribution International Ltd (together, Apple), alleging breaches of the Chapter II prohibition in the Competition Act 1998 and Article 102 TFEU (before 31 December 2020). The Tribunal found Apple abused its dominant position over app distribution and in-app payment services, breaching Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 102 TFEU. Background In May 2021, the Class Representative, Dr Rachael Kent, applied to commence collective proceedings under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998 against Apple...

Private actions The Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal about the CAT’s approval of litigation funding in a damages claim against Apple, alleging abuse of dominance in the supply of Apple iPhones. The Court of Justice has handed down its judgment in Gutmann v Apple Inc & Ors, concerning an appeal from the CAT on the financing of a collective damages action brought, under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998, by Mr Justin Gutmann against Apple Distribution Limited and Apple Retail UK Limited (together, Apple). Background In 2022, Mr Justin Gutmann sought permission to bring collective proceedings, under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998, against Apple. Those collective proceedings aggregate stand-alone damages claims under section 47A of the Competition Act, said to arise from alleged infringements by Apple of Article 102 TFEU (before 31 December 2020) and the Chapter II prohibition in the Competition Act 1998...

UK competition law UK competition law polices anti-competitive behaviour, oversees merger control and promotes competitive markets. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is the principal UK competition authority. Created by the merger of the OFT and the Competition Commission, it took over enforcing competition law in the UK on 1 April 2014. The CMA, together with other concurrent competition authorities, has powers to: enforce prohibitions on anti-competitive agreements and on abuse of a dominant position (see further, Chapter I prohibition and Chapter II prohibition) bring criminal prosecutions against individuals responsible for implementing hardcore cartels (see further, The UK criminal cartel offence) seek director disqualification orders against directors involved in competition law breaches (see further, Director disqualification) investigate UK mergers and block them or require remedies where they would result in a substantial lessening of competition (see further, UK merger control—overview) open investigations into industries to ensure markets remain competitive and impose remedies where there is an adverse effect on competition (see...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 May 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Standalone proceedings before the CAT were brought by Socrates Training Limited against the Law Society of England and Wales, alleging abuse of dominance (Case 1249/5/7/16). Latest development On 26 May 2017, the CAT issued its judgment on liability, concluding that the Law Society had abused its dominant position (in breach of the Chapter II prohibition) in the market for supplying quality certification/accreditation to conveyancing firms by requiring that certain training courses were sourced exclusively from it. The CAT also held that the Chapter I prohibition had been infringed. However, it determined that liability arose only from the end of April 2015, and not earlier. The Tribunal will next consider quantum. That same day, the CAT made directions dealing with matters following the judgment, including: ordering the Law Society not to oblige...

In the UK, unilateral or ‘dominant’ firm behaviour falls within section 18 of the Competition Act 1998. Section 18(1) of Chapter II provides that conduct by one or more undertakings amounting to abuse of a dominant position in a market is prohibited if it may affect trade within the United Kingdom. the abuse need only have the potential to impact trade within the UK, and the dominant position must exist within the UK (even if the abuse occurs outside the UK) ‘UK’ refers to the United Kingdom or any part of it. There is no requirement that the part be ‘substantial’. Otherwise, the analysis of the applicability of the will mirror Article 102 TFEU, namely: is there a dominant position? This involves defining the market and evaluating the allegedly dominant undertaking’s position in that market, and is the conduct at issue abusive? This Practice Note offers a general overview of the application of the, focussing...