Relaxing whilst doing Competition Law is not an Oxymoron

Archive for March 25th, 2013

Theories of Harm potentially applicable to Apple’s Distribution Tactics

with 2 comments


On TV last week, I looked dumb reciting the obvious: in the EU, the law forbids RPM as an outright unlawful practice. So if it was proven that Apple is RPMing, then there could be trouble down the road.

Some voices blarred amongst some competition lawyers’ friends, as I had proferred accusation on Apple (I have not).

So I made some research in the WE. Upon inquiry, it seems that Apple’s tactics are more subtle. If I understand correctly, Apple tells its independent retailers that consumers can take a price up to a certain level (let’s say 500€), but no more. In turn, Apple sets in the contract a recommended maximum price of 500€. And then, it sells them the product at a price slighlty below this (let’s say 495€). On top of this, Apple would allegedly charge lower prices to its own retail distribution network.

On face value, such maximum prices are per se lawful. But the question is whether this can be akin to de facto RPM, given that with the high input price, Apple in essence gives little choice to its independent retailers but to apply the maximum price. Further evidence that this constitutes hidden RPM would stem from the fact  that Apple accords much lower prices to its own retail operations  (incl. over the Internet).

But there’s something puzzling with this theory of harm: why on earth would Apple seek to harm independent retailers? Possible options are (1) Apple engages into de facto RPM in countries where it does not have large retail operations of its own, so as to yield as much profit as possible; (2) Apple is reluctant to sell through independent retailers in countries where it has its own retail operations, but anticipates that with control over a “must store” product, it would be forced to supply.

In option 1, we are looking at a theory of anticompetitive exploitation, amenable to an infringement under the RPM framework, pursuant to 101 TFEU or to unfair pricing rules pursuant to 102 TFEU (if Apple is proven dominant).

In option 2, we are looking at a theory of anticompetitive exclusion, amenable to an infringement under article 102 TFEU (if Apple again is proven dominant), under the refusal to supply/price discrimination/margin squeeze doctrines.

A related puzzling thing is about retailers’ incentives to buy a product on which they make so little margin. But again, one may consider that they have incentives to do so at any rate, because this brings traffic towards their shop. And after all, each distributor is likely to believe that it is better to be the one to make the sale, rather than to leave it to another distributor.

All this, of course, should be backed by facts. The Commission is apparently looking into this, if I believe the latest news.

Written by Nicolas Petit

25 March 2013 at 12:55 pm

Posted in Uncategorized