CMA accepts Google's commitments on removing third-party cookies from Chrome
The UK Competition and Markets Authority ("CMA") has concludedits investigation of Google's Privacy Sandbox tools. The investigation concerned Google's proposals to remove third-party cookies and other functionalities from its Chrome browser. The CMA considered the competition implications of Google's proposal, as it may hinder competition in digital advertising and fortify Google's stranglehold in the market. At the same time, the CMA considered the need to alleviate privacy concerns, as third-party cookies enable users to be tracked across the web. The CMA accepted Google's commitments, including (i) obligations on Google to involve the CMA and the Information Commissioner's Office in the development and testing of its Privacy Sandbox, (ii) obligations on conducting a transparent process and consulting with third parties, (iii) measures to address competition concerns before removing the functionality or information of third-party cookies, (iv) a mechanism to monitor Google's compliance, (v) restrictions on sharing data internally to use for digital advertising, and (vi) commitments against self-preferencing. The CMA will continue monitoring this process for six years. For further information please see our article here.
European Commission publishes revised draft of HBERs for public consultation
The European Commission ("Commission") has published for public consultation its drafts of the revised Horizontal Block Exemption Regulations on Research & Development ("R&D") and Specialisation Agreements ("R&D BER" and "Specialisation BER" (respectively, together "HBERs") and the accompanying Guidelines on Horizontal Cooperation Agreements ("Guidelines"). The Commission aims to adjust the HBERs and Guidelines to reflect developments over the past decade, including the digital and green transition. The new drafts clarify the current text, add new guidance on the application of the HBERs and expand the scope of the Specialisation BER. The drafts exempt (i) R&D agreements concerning new products, technologies and processes, and (ii) R&D efforts directed towards a specific objective but not yet specified in terms of the product or technology under EU competition rules, but only if there are sufficient comparable competing R&D efforts. The revised drafts also include a new chapter on the assessment of horizontal agreements pursuing sustainability objectives, as well as new guidance on data sharing, mobile infrastructure-sharing agreements and bidding consortia. The updated drafts also simplify the administrative supervision of the Commission and national competition authorities by streamlining and modernising the general framework for the assessment of horizontal cooperation agreements.
Apple gets hit with its sixth weekly fine over non-compliance with the Dutch authority's order
The Dutch Autoriteit Consument en Markt, ACM, orderedApple to adjust what it deemed to be unreasonable conditions in its App Store. Considering that dating app providers cannot freely choose the payment system for customers who make in-app purchases, and that Apple imposes additional payments to the app providers for in-app purchases, the ACM ruled that Apple must adjust the conditions for access to the App Store and allow app providers to use an alternative payment system. Apple was given two months to implement these adjustments. The company's proposed solution, which was updated after further meetings with the ACM, entailed a requirement for developers to submit a separate version for the Dutch App Store if they intend to use a payment service other than its in-app purchasing tool. Deeming this insufficient and ruling that Apple failed to comply with the law, the ACM has now imposed a sixth weekly fine of EUR 5 million against the company. The maximum amount of the fine that the ACM can impose is EUR 50 million. Apple has stated that their solution is compliant with Dutch law and that the case may need to be resolved by a court.
European Commission approves the merger between container and cargo-handling equipment giants Cargotec and Konecranes
The Commission approvedthe transaction with divestments. During its investigation, the Commission noted concerns that the merged entity would have herculean market power for the markets of container and cargo handling equipment types and that this would significantly hinder competition and likely lead to higher prices. To eliminate the concerns, Cargotec committed to divest its full cranes and straddle/shuttle carrier business, while Konecranes undertook to divest its business for the manufacturing and commercialisation of reach stackers, full container handlers, empty container handlers and forklift trucks.
Korea probes cloud services sector
The Korean Fair Trade Commission ("FTC") has launched a fact-finding survey to uncover whether there are competition law issues in the cloud sector, which has seen drastic growth amid the pandemic due to the expansion of remote work and the need for efficient data management. The FTC will examine the actual conditions of transactions in the cloud market and determine whether there are any unfair practices such as price-fixing. Considering that global companies such as Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft dominate the domestic cloud market, the survey will also focus on the concentration of data.
Commission decides that Hungary's veto over acquisition constitutes a breach of EUMR
In August 2021, the European Commission clearedVienna Insurance Group's acquisition of AEGON Group's Hungarian subsidiaries, which is part of VIG's plans to acquire AEGON's Hungarian, Polish, Romanian and Turkish life and non-life insurance, pension fund, asset management and ancillary services businesses. However, before the clearance, the Hungarian government vetoed the acquisition based on "emergency amendments to the Hungarian foreign direct investment screening legislation introduced in the context of the coronavirus pandemic", arguing that it threatened their legitimate interests. The Commission orderedHungary to withdraw its veto by arguing that the transaction has an EU dimension and that the Commission has exclusive competence to examine such concentrations under Article 21 of the EUMR.
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.