The Polish Competition Authority (PCA) has imposed fines of over PLN900 million (approx. EUR210m) on major pharmaceutical wholesalers for participating in an anticompetitive information exchange.
The decision is significant in demonstrating that systematic exchanges of commercially sensitive information between competitors—even in the absence of explicit price-fixing or market allocation agreements—can generate antitrust risks. The fines imposed on the wholesalers are among the largest ever imposed in antitrust cases in Poland.
A decade-long information exchange
According to the PCA, for over ten years, Poland's largest pharmaceutical wholesalers from the Neuca group, Farmacol group, and Polska Grupa Farmaceutyczna systematically exchanged sensitive purchasing data, including current wholesale drug prices, sales volumes and commercial terms offered to inpidual pharmacies.
The PCA found that wholesalers gathered information through IT tools embedded in pharmacy partnership programmes. In exchange, pharmacies received benefits such as rebates, training and marketing support.
Using data collected from thousands of pharmacies, the wholesalers gained a comprehensive view of the market. They could see precisely what a specific pharmacy purchased from a competitor, at what price, and on what terms. In the PCA's view, such an exchange of information went beyond legitimate price monitoring, since the prices at which wholesalers supply products to inpidual pharmacies are not public.
The PCA concluded that the information exchange allowed the wholesalers to avoid engaging in price competition.
The President of the PCA emphasized that the wholesalers "synchronised" their price lists instead of competing for customers, which significantly restricted competition on the market. When a wholesaler knew that a competitor was selling a drug at a higher price, it raised its own price, and when a rival lowered its price, it adjusted its offer. In the PCA's view, such behaviour resulted in worse commercial terms for the pharmacies and, in turn, for the patients who paid higher prices for their medicines.
Notably, the European Commission (EC) confirmed the legal assessment of the conduct and the PCA's reasoning in light of the evidence collected during the proceedings. Publication of the PCA’s full decision should give further insight to the PCA’s evaluation—it will be hotly-anticipated.
When is information exchange an antitrust issue?
Companies often exchange information to gain various efficiencies. However, the exchange of sensitive data between competitors can give rise to serious antitrust risks, in particular when it enables companies to be aware of the market strategies of their rivals and reduces uncertainty on the market.
This is confirmed in the EC’s Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 TFEU to horizontal cooperation agreements (Guidelines) which provide the EU framework (followed by the PCA) for assessing information exchange.
The Guidelines highlight that concerns can arise when competitors exchange sensitive and granular commercial data such as current or future prices, sales volumes, commercial strategies, or customer data.
Such information might be exchanged directly between competitors, or indirectly, e.g., via customers, suppliers, trade associations, service providers, IT tools, platforms or algorithms. The disclosure of strategic information by one firm to a rival can also be problematic, as the recipient will be presumed to have accepted the information and acted on it, unless it clearly distances itself.
Whether an information exchange restricts competition under antitrust rules also requires an assessment of various factors such as the structure and characteristics of the market, the information type, the level of granularity, the age of the data, and the frequency of the exchange.
Importantly, the mere sharing of commercially sensitive data may be enough to constitute a breach of antitrust law—competitors do not need to agree on prices or share the market.
To reduce antitrust risk, companies can take preventative measures, such as the use of clean teams to receive and process information or the secured storage of sensitive data.
Heavy fines (with some leniency success)
Under Polish antitrust law, companies can be fined up to 10% of their annual turnover for anticompetitive information exchange.
Here, the PCA imposed fines of over PLN900m (approx. EUR210m) on the following companies:
- Neuca: approx. PLN500m (approx. EUR115m)
- Farmacol-Logistyka: approx. PLN400m (approx. EUR92m)
- Farmacol: approx. PLN4m (approx. EUR1m)
- Świat Zdrowia (belonging to Neuca group) approx. PLN2m (approx. EUR0.5m).
The exact methodology of calculating the fines will become available once the full decision is published. Polska Grupa Farmaceutyczna avoided a fine entirely by cooperating under the leniency program.
The PCA’s decision is not final. According to the press releases, Neuca and Farmacol plan to appeal the decision.
Key takeaways
Information exchange as a standalone infringement
The case confirms that systematic exchanges of commercially sensitive information between competitors, even in the absence of explicit price-fixing or market allocation agreements, can generate antitrust risks.
Record fine for pharmaceutical distribution
The penalties are among the largest antitrust fines imposed in Poland. This is one of the PCA’s most significant enforcement actions in the pharmaceutical distribution sector to date.
Cooperation with the EC
The positive opinion issued by the EC on the PCA decision signals alignment between Polish and EU-level enforcement standards and may encourage further cross-border cooperation.
Broader trend of pharmaceutical sector scrutiny
The decision is proof that antitrust authorities pay close attention to the pharmaceutical sector at all levels of the supply chain. It may prompt action by other member state authorities.
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.
[View Source]
