Chillin'Competition

A couple of months have passed since Superleague and ISU (as well as Royal Antwerp). One of the most recurrent issues in the stimulating commentary that followed the delivery of the rulings related to the interpretation of Wouters and Meca Medina.

The Court held that a practice that amounts to a restriction by object cannot escape Article 101(1) TFEU under the Wouters–Meca Medina doctrine. In the words of the Court (in ISU):

‘113. By contrast, the case-law referred to in paragraph 111 of the present judgment [Wouters and Meca Medina] does not apply either in situations involving conduct which, far from merely having the inherent ‘effect’ of restricting competition, at least potentially, by limiting the freedom of action of certain undertakings, reveals a degree of harm in relation to that competition that justifies a finding that it has as its very ‘object’ the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. Thus, it is only if, following an examination of the conduct at issue in a given case, that conduct proves not to have as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition that it must then be determined whether it may come within the scope of that case-law […]’.

The Court’s position has been widely discussed. The interest in this aspect of the saga is not something I would have anticipated. As I understand it, Superleague and ISU are fully in line with the preceding case law. Contrary to what has been suggested, it does not seem to me that they reduce the scope of the Wouters–Meca Medina doctrine. If anything, they streamline and clarify it.

It is true that the preceding case law had not expressly spelled out what Superleague and ISU did. Arguably, the idea that Wouters and Meca Medina are only relevant where the practice is not a ‘by object’ infringement was already implicit in the relevant judgments. Some leading experts have taken a different view, but it always seemed to me like the most reasonable understanding of the doctrine.

To understand the Court’s position, one must remember the basic premise of the doctrine: where a restraint is justified by the ‘pursuit of one or more legitimate objectives in the public interest‘, it falls outside the scope of Article 101(1) TFEU altogether (that is, it does not restrict competition, whether by object or effect).

By definition, a restraint that is ‘genuinely necessary‘ to attain a set of regulatory goals that are not in and of themselves anticompetitive does not have, as its object, the restriction of competition.

In other words, if the restraint seeks, in a proportionate manner, to attain a one or more ‘legitimate objectives in the public interest‘, the object of the said restraint cannot be anticompetitive. It is in the nature of things: the object of the (legitimate) regulatory goals and the object of the ancillary restraint are one and the same. If the former is not restrictive by its very nature, neither is the latter.

The Court’s position (which, as explained above, is uncontroversial and expected) is particularly useful to illustrate, more broadly, its consistent approach to restrictions by object, which has been clarified in the past few years.

A first key idea one can draw from the case law is that restrictions by object are not abstract categories.

‘Price-fixing’ and ‘market sharing’ are not necessarily restrictive by object. In fact, these categories say very little about the nature of a practice in and of themselves. The Court has never been formalistic when ascertaining the object of agreements (for an extensive discussion, see here).

In a given economic and legal context, ‘price-fixing’ and ‘market sharing’ may even fall outside the scope of Article 101(1) TFEU altogether (which would be the case, for instance, if they relate to a transaction that pursues a legimate aim).

We are not short of examples in the case law showing that ‘price-fixing’ and ‘market sharing’ arrangements may escape the prohibition. Price-fixing (and coordinated output restrictions, no less) can very well fall outside the scope of Article 101(1) TFEU where they are part of the activities of a copyright collecting society. Think, in this sense, of the venerable judgment in Tournier.

Using language that reminds one of ISU and Superleague, the Court held in Tournier (para 31) that ‘[c]opyright-management societies pursue a legitimate aim when they endeavour to safeguard the rights and interests of their members vis-à-vis the users of recorded music. The contracts concluded with users for that purpose [which necessarily provide for price-fixing] cannot be regarded as restrictive of competition for the purposes of Article [101] unless the contested practice exceeds the limits of what is necessary for the attainment of that aim‘.

A more recent (and thus less venerable) example was provided by the Court in the recent judgment in EDP. In this ruling, the Court expressly held that a market sharing arrangement may fall outside the scope of the prohibition where it is ancillary to the main transaction (paras 87-94).

The second key idea is that the case law on restrictions by object is perhaps less obscure than assumed.

What ISU and Superleague show is that the question of whether a practice restricts competition by object is simpler than we tend to assume. The plain meaning of the word object (that is, the objective purpose or aim of an restraint) takes us a long way when evaluating whether an agreement is caught by Article 101(1) TFEU by its very nature. It is, by some distance, the single more reliable indicator.

In more precise terms, if a practice, objectively speaking, is a means to attain a legitimate regulatory objective (which in the sports arena may be to achieve competitive balance or to preserve the integrity of the competition) and is ancillary to it, it cannot be said to have an anticompetitive object.

‘