Antitrust Authority published for public comments a new
guidelines draft on the subject of information-sharing between
competitors for the purpose of contending with cyber threats.
Under certain circumstances, information-sharing among
competitors may constitute a restrictive trade practice pursuant to
the Restrictive Trade Practices Law.
In light of the importance of information-sharing between
commercial entities in Israel for the purpose of defending against
cyber threats, and for the purpose of protecting the State's
essential infrastructure, the Antitrust Commissioner, Michal
Halperin, decided to clarify her position in this regard.
The opinion presents guidelines for analyzing the competitive
nature of information-sharing, and provides criteria for evaluating
information-sharing arrangements and, thus, increases the certainty
for entities wanting to take part in cybersecurity
information-sharing schemes, without being concerned about
violating provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Law.
The opinion defines two criteria for cybersecurity
The first criterion focuses on the type of information being
exchanged within the scope of information-sharing. The draft
guidelines clarify in this regard that, insofar as the information
being exchanged is necessary for the purposes of increasing
cybersecurity, and provided that it has no bearing on the
parties' business activities, then no concern will arise about
any coordination of commercial activities between competing
The second criterion focuses on the effects of denying access to
cybersecurity information-sharing schemes from a competitor. Since
cybersecurity information provides valuable information to entities
operating in a relevant sector or market, preventing access to such
information-sharing schemes is liable to impair their competitive
capabilities, to raise the entry barriers to the market and
sometimes, might even prevent new entities from entering a market,
thus constituting a restrictive arrangement by itself.
For the link to the draft opinion: (in Hebrew) click
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Dominant firms are prohibited by the Competition Act 1998 from charging excessive prices to the detriment of consumers. Why only dominant firms? The presumption is that a small firm will lose its customers to its competitors if it charges excessive prices.
The Competition Commission recently found a dual distribution restraint to amount to a market allocation agreement between competitors, which is outright unlawful under the Competition Act, 89 of 1998.
Recently, the Competition Appeal Court (CAC) reversed the decision of the Competition Tribunal in the matter of Nationwide Poles CC and Sasol Oil (Pty) Ltd.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).