European Union: European Commission Publishes Final E-Commerce Sector Inquiry Report (Consumer Goods) – Increased Enforcement Activity On The Horizon Concerning Restrictions On The Online Sale Of Goods

On 10 May 2017, the European Commission ("Commission") published its final Report on the e-commerce sector inquiry ("the Report"), aimed at identifying business practices in the sector that might restrict competition and limit consumer choice.

The Report consists of two documents: (i) a 16-page summary; and (ii) a 298-page Staff Working Document, and considers issues arising from the sale of consumer goods and the supply of digital content separately. The results are based upon evidence gathered from 1 900 companies operating in e-commerce of consumer goods and digital content, in addition to analysing around 8 000 distribution and license contracts.

This article focuses on the Report's analysis of (physical) consumer goods. The Report's treatment of digital content is considered separately in this edition of the Newsletter.

The Report largely mirrors the preliminary report (See VBB on Competition Law, Volume 2016, No. 9, available at in that it identifies various practices, found to be used to varying degrees, that either do, or may, raise competition law concerns, but it stops short of advocating any changes to the Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Regulation ("VABER"), which is due for renewal in 2022.

Businesses should, therefore, play close attention to its findings as it sets the tone for future possible investigations and actions, both in the specific product areas subject to the sector inquiry and more generally.

More specifically, the Report contains important indications of the Commission's likely approach with respect to a number of practices used by (mainly) suppliers in relation to the online sale of goods, including:

  • Online pricing restrictions/recommendations
  • Restrictions on cross-border sales
  • Selective distribution systems
  • Online marketplace restrictions
  • Parity clauses
  • Restrictions on the use of price comparison tools & online search engines
  • Use of data

Online pricing restrictions/recommendations

The Commission outlines that the growth of e-commerce has led to increased price transparency. Whilst this benefits the consumer by helping it find the best deal online and by fuelling price competition, the Report also recognises the potential downsides of these trends. In particular, it highlights: (i) the risk of free-riding between on and off-line channels (both where customers use pre-sale services of brick and mortar shops before purchasing the product online, and where they search the product online before purchasing in the brick and mortar shop); and (ii) the potential adverse effect on competition generated by non-price factors, namely quality, brand image and innovation. The Commission notes how both manufacturers and retailers consider it essential to address free-riding, and to maintain the incentives for retailers to invest in high quality services by creating a level playing field between offline and online channels. It also recognises that incentivising investment in quality and innovation, and controlling brand image and positioning, are key for most manufacturers to ensure their mid to long term viability.  

The Report does not, however, suggest that this enhanced risk of free riding and effect on non-price competition is likely to make it easier to justify pricing restraints. It limits itself to repeating that agreements that establish a minimum or fixed resale price or price range (which equate to retail price maintenance) are considered to be restrictions by object under Article 101 TFEU and "hardcore" restrictions within the meaning of Article 4(a) of the VABER, and that only maximum prices and truly non-binding price recommendations are exempted by the VABER.

It notes that 42% of retailers who responded to the Commission's inquiry reported to be subject to contractual pricing limitations/recommendations, and that such restrictions were "by far the most widespread restrictions reported by retailers". This is not in itself surprising, or necessarily concerning, as recommended retail prices are very common in practice and, as the Report acknowledges, are considered important to communicate quality and brand position. Nonetheless, the Report claims that various retailers have confirmed the use of retail price maintenance by manufacturers (presumably going beyond mere recommendations), and this may well trigger enforcement action.

The Report illustrates the Commission's potential concerns about the use of software to frequently monitor online retail prices, making it easier to detect deviations from manufacturers' pricing recommendations and even potentially deterring retailers from departing from them. Such pricing software may enable price transparency which can facilitate or strengthen collusion amongst retailers. However, no proposed measures are suggested in order to tackle this concern.

The Report furthermore notes that respondents to the Inquiry had concerns relating to the EU rules on dual pricing. In an e-commerce context, dual pricing involves manufacturers charging different wholesale prices for the same products to the same retailer, depending on whether the products are to be sold online or offline. Dual pricing is generally considered to be a hardcore restriction under the VABER, and is apparently very rarely used. However, the Report notes that such restrictions may be exempted under Article 101(3) of the TFEU on an individual basis, for example where a dual pricing arrangement would be indispensable to address free-riding. The Commission might intend to indicate some greater signs of flexibility with respect to dual pricing, but the possibility of justifying the practice on the grounds of efficiencies is already recognised in the Vertical Guidelines (paragraph 64).

Restrictions on cross-border sales

A substantial minority (36%) of respondent retailers stated that they do not sell cross-border for at least one of the relevant product categories in which they are active. In addition, 38% of respondent retailers collect information on the location of customers in order to implement geo-blocking measures (i.e., to restrict sales to customers in other Member States).

The Report confirms that firms are free do decide whether or not to sell across borders and, in the absence of a dominant market position, the EU competition rules do not limit the right of firms to unilaterally apply geo-blocking measures. Therefore, geo-blocking measures implemented by undertakings that manufacture goods and sell them through their own website fall outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU. But, if geo-blocking measures result from an agreement or concerted practice (which is not a genuine agency agreement between two undertakings), they may fall within the scope of Article 101(1) TFEU. The Report notes that 11% of retailers are subject to contractual cross-border sales restrictions in at least one product area in which they are active, and that some of these restrictions may raise concerns.

The Report summarises the approach to territorial restrictions under the VABER, noting that distributors may be restricted from making active sales into an exclusive territory or to an exclusive customer group that is either (i) reserved to the supplier or (ii) allocated by the supplier to another distributor. On the other hand, restrictions on passive sales, even into an exclusively reserved or allocated territory or customer group, will constitute hardcore restrictions, as they would grant the distributor absolute territorial protection. Furthermore, all territorial restrictions within a selective distribution system (whether relating to active or passive sales) are hardcore restrictions.

The Report indicates evidence of the use of the following territorial restrictions which raise concerns regarding their compatibility with Article 101 TFEU, and may amount to hardcore restrictions under Article 4 of the VABER:

  • Certain suppliers contractually restrict their retailers' ability to sell both actively and passively to customers outside their Member State of establishment, or to customers located in certain Member States.
  • Certain suppliers appear to restrict active sales by distributors outside a designated territory, irrespective of whether other territories have been exclusively allocated to other distributors or reserved to the supplier;
  • Certain manufacturers appear to restrict passive sales into territories that have been exclusively allocated to other distributors or reserved for the supplier;
  • Certain suppliers operating a selective distribution system across several Member States appear to be limiting the ability of authorised retailers to actively and passively sell to all customers within those Member States;
  • A few manufacturers combine the appointment of an exclusive distributor for a certain territory at the wholesale level with a selective distribution system operated across several Member States, and limit the ability of the appointed wholesalers to actively sell to all authorised distributors within the Member States in which the selective distribution network is operated.

Enforcement action could follow in respect of some of these restrictions, although, as the Vertical Guidelines demonstrate, they will not always infringe the competition rules (for example, paragraph 63 of the Vertical Guidelines indicates the circumstances in which the restriction on active sales by exclusive wholesalers in a selective distribution system will meet the conditions of Article 101(3)).

Selective distribution systems

The Report suggests that the growth of e-commerce has resulted in manufacturers using selective distribution systems to a greater extent than previously in order to better control the distribution of their products, with 19% of surveyed manufacturers having introduced a selective distribution system in the last ten years. Selective distribution is used by more than half of surveyed manufacturers in the product categories of clothing and shoes, cosmetics and healthcare, consumer electronics, and household appliances.

The Report sees no reason to change the freedom given to manufacturers by the VABER to operate either qualitative or quantitative selective distribution systems regardless of the type of product, and to freely choose the criteria they apply for admission to their networks. The Report does voice specific potential concerns where there is a requirement on retailers to operate a brick and mortar shop which excludes online-only retailers (pure players) without justification.  Although requirements on distributors to have a brick and mortar shop are considered to comply with the VABER, withdrawal of the benefit of the block exemption may be considered where such a requirement does not have a justified nexus to distribution quality and/or potential efficiency and is essentially a mechanism to exclude pure players.  Again, this is not a new approach, and is provided for in the Vertical Guidelines (paragraphs 176 & 179). 

Online marketplace restrictions

The legal assessment of restrictions on the use of marketplaces by authorised retailers is currently subject to a degree of uncertainty pending the upcoming ruling of the European Court of Justice in Coty.

The Report nonetheless confirms the Commission's pre-existing view that even an absolute prohibition on sales through marketplaces is not (at least generally) a hardcore restriction and, therefore, is exempted by the VABER.  This is because a marketplace ban does not generally amount to a de facto total ban on the use of the internet as a means of marketing, and therefore does not fall within the scope of the Pierre Fabre ruling. The Commission considers such a ban as a restriction on how a retailer sells over the internet, and not on where or to whom it sells (thereby falling outside Art. 4(b) of the VABER).

This view is based on the factual results of the Commission's investigation, which support the conclusion that retailers are not reliant on marketplaces in order to make internet sales, particularly because they can sell through their own websites. The Report noted that only 4% of retailers sell online exclusively through marketplaces, whereas more than 90% use their own online shop. As a result, these types of restrictions cannot "at this stage" be said to restrict the effective use of the internet as a sales channel.

According to the Report, restrictions on the use of marketplaces are not uncommon. 18% of retailers reported to have agreements with their suppliers containing such restrictions. Germany was the Member State with the highest proportion of retailers (32%) experiencing marketplace restrictions, followed by France (21%). Restrictions on the use of marketplaces are mostly found in selective distribution agreements and typically involve branded goods (without being limited to luxury or complex or technical goods).

The Commission concludes that, despite the above, this does not mean that absolute marketplace bans are necessarily compatible with European competition law. For example, the protection of the VABER may be lost in a particular case depending on the market situation and where there is an insufficient justification under Article 101(3).

The Commission also notes that a limited number of retailers are subject to a complete ban on selling over the internet, which is clearly a hardcore restriction.

Parity clauses

There has been increasing divergence in the manner in which European national competition authorities and legislators are treating price parity clauses imposed by large online travel agents (See VBB on Competition Law, Volume 2017, No. 4, available at The Staff Working Document briefly considers parity clauses where applied by online marketplaces. The legal analysis is very limited. Importantly, however, it confirms the Commission's view that parity clauses in vertical agreements are exempted by the VABER, provided that the parties' market shares do not exceed 30% and that no hardcore restrictions within the meaning of Article 4 of the VABER are included in the agreement. Where market shares exceed 30%, and an individual assessment is required, the Report notes that parity clauses can have pro and anticompetitive effects: they may have the benefit of preventing free-riding, but they may also reduce incentives for retailers to compete and create barriers to entry and expansion. They will therefore be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Price comparison tools & online search engine restrictions

The use of price comparison tools by retailers is relatively widespread, with 36% of retailers reporting to have supplied data feeds regarding their products to price comparison tool providers in 2014. The Report indicates that bans on the use of price comparison tools potentially restrict the effective use of the internet as a sales channel, and may amount to a hardcore restriction of passive sales under Article 4(b) and (c) of the VABER where they are not linked to quality criteria,. However, restrictions on price comparison tools which are based on objective qualitative criteria are covered by the VABER.

The Report therefore advocates a stricter approach to restrictions on the use of price comparison tools than to restrictions on sales through marketplaces, without directly explaining why this is justified.  Indeed, applying the Commission's reasoning in respect of marketplace restrictions, both types of restrictions could be said to relate to how products are sold online, as opposed to where and to whom products may be sold. In support of this, the Report does not view price comparison tools as a distinct sales channel, but as offering retailers "the ability to present and advertise their online offerings to a wider audience", in addition to increasing the "findability of the online offering and generate traffic to the retailer's own website".

In addition, the Report briefly comments on the use of search engines as an important means of increasing customer visits to retail websites, and restrictions imposed by manufacturers on the use by retailers of manufacturers' brand names for online marketing. The Commission notes that restrictions on the use by retailers of the trademarks of certain manufacturers in order to obtain preferential listings on search engine paid referencing sites (such as Google Adwords) would raise concerns should they "restrict the effective use of the internet as a sales channel by limiting the ability of retailers to direct customers to their website", although no further guidance is provided as to how to assess when this would be likely. In contrast, restrictions on the use by retailers of the manufacturer's name in the retailers' own domain names does not raise concerns as it prevents confusion.

Use of data

While it was not a central part of the inquiry itself, the Report's consideration of data issues provides some interesting insight. Its findings illustrate that the collection, processing and use of large amounts of data ("big data") is becoming increasingly important in e-commerce. In particular, big data analytics in e-commerce can lead to improved multi-channel integration, more efficient processes, reduced inventory and the creation of new features and services. However, the Report also highlights possible competition concerns relating to data-collection and usage.

The Report outlines that the exchange of competitively sensitive data (such as relating to prices or quantities sold) between marketplaces and third party sellers, or between manufacturers and retailers, may lead to competition concerns where these parties compete. This could be the case where manufacturers who sell directly online through their webstores ask their authorised distributors for competitively sensitive data, as this could be used for anti-competitive purposes. 

Comment: greater convergence and increased enforcement?

The goal of the Commission seems to be greater convergence in the application of the rules for distribution arrangements in the context of more vigorous enforcement against classic hardcore restrictions.

First, there has been increasing uncertainty and divergence in the treatment of vertical agreements throughout the EU relating to certain e-commerce issues. The inconsistent approaches towards "parity clauses" and bans on distributors using online marketplaces illustrate a need for clear guidance, cooperation and consistent application of EU competition law. However, the Report's findings demonstrate a continued conflict between the Commission's position and, in particular, the position of the German Courts/Federal Cartel Office ("FCO"). The Commission's position that absolute marketplace bans are not considered to be hardcore restrictions contrasts with the German hostility toward such restrictions in the FCO's 2015 ASICS decision, and the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt's Deuter ruling (See VBB on Competition Law, Volume 2016, No. 2, available at The Report notes that it will broaden dialogue with national competition authorities within the European Competition Network on e-commerce issues in order to contribute to the consistent application of EU competition rules. It is anticipated that the forthcoming Coty judgment will assist in providing further guidance in this area.

Second, although the Report's findings may not significantly expand upon the stance taken in the VABER and the Vertical Guidelines, it does assist in mapping the future enforcement agenda of the Commission. With publication of the Report, Commissioner Vestager stated the findings "help us to target the enforcement of EU competition rules in e-commerce markets".  Increased enforcement in this sector could already be observed in February 2017 when the Commission announced it had opened investigations into consumer electronics pricing, PC video games and holiday accommodation (See VBB on Competition Law, Volume 2017, No. 2, available at Of further interest is the fact that, in its press release announcing the final Report, the Commission named a number of companies active in clothing and other retail sectors that have apparently already changed their practices in light of the Report's findings. In addition, on 6 June 2017 the Commission announced that it was opening proceedings against Guess concerning various distribution practices, including cross-border sales restrictions, cross-selling bans among members of a selective distribution system, internet sales restrictions and resale price restrictions. With these powerful signals that increased enforcement appears to be inevitable and in light of the Report's overall findings, businesses should carefully re-consider the terms of their distribution agreements.

Click here to view the Report

Click here to view the accompanying Staff Working Document

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

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
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”

Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
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).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions