Chillin'Competition

Intel has given rise to much excitement in the competition law community. No doubt it is a high-profile case where much is at stake. If you asked me, however, I would say that the pending preliminary ruling in Post Danmark II is more important for the future of Article 102 TFEU. For some reason, it has attracted relatively little attention (one notable exception is Luc Peeperkorn’s recent article, mentioned by Alfonso a few days ago). Now that the date of the hearing (26 March) is approaching, it makes sense to say a few words about it. From the outset, I have to thank Christian Bergqvist, from the University of Copenhagen, for his availability to discuss the background and some aspects of the case.

Some authors have claimed in the past months that the case law on exclusive dealing and rebates has the advantage of providing legal certainty. It is clear that exclusivity obligations and rebates conditional upon exclusivity are, absent an objective justification, unlawful under Article 102 TFEU. A qualified prohibition rule of the kind is undeniably easier to administer than a standard (a different story is of course that the former is less accurate and more error-prone than the latter).

What these authors do not always emphasise is that the case law would be easier to administer if it prohibited altogether, absent an objective justification, all other rebate schemes. Even easier to administer would be a rule allowing all rebates. The fact is that schemes that are not formally conditional upon exclusivity are, at least in principle, only prohibited where they are shown to be ‘loyalty-inducing’ (or ‘fidelity-building’). As explained by the GC in Intel, this is a matter to be established following an assessment of ‘all the circumstances’ relating to the rebate scheme in question. The lawfulness of these rebate schemes is, in other words, formally assessed in accordance with a standard.

Some standards are good and some are not. A good standard is one that is structured around a set of well-defined proxies and that is predictable for firms and easy to administer for courts and authorities. Bad standards, in turn, are unstructured and make it impossible for firms to anticipate the outcome of a particular case. Post Danmark II shows that the standard under which rebates not formally conditional upon exclusivity are assessed is closer to the second category. The criteria identified in the case law to determine whether a given rebate scheme is ‘loyalty-inducing’ do not provide the basis for an operational legal test that can be readily applied by national courts and authorities.

Post Danmark II is particularly interesting because it is about standardised rebates (this is explicitly mentioned in the preliminary reference). A scheme of that kind is in principle lawful under the case law. Quantity rebates apply in the same way to all customers and increase with the amount supplied and are thus presumed to reflect the cost savings made by the firm. Is that the end of the story? Does it mean that the scheme in question is compatible with Article 102 TFEU? Not really. We know, at least since Michelin II, that quantity rebates can be found to be ‘loyalty-inducing’ and as such prohibited. As in that case, the rebates in Post Danmark II are retroactive. Is the retroactive nature of the rebates alone sufficient to establish an abuse? An additional factor that was considered in Michelin II is the reference period considered for the award of the rebates. Are all rebates granted over a one-year period prohibited?

One can try and read and re-read the relevant rulings, but I am afraid that nothing in the case law clarifies how the abovementioned factors (some hinting at the lawfulness of the scheme, some suggesting a violation of Article 102 TFEU) are weighed against one another to establish whether, on the whole, a particular scheme is ‘loyalty-inducing’. The case law, in other words, does not provide a set of principles for the systematic assessment of the nature of rebate schemes. The different criteria have so far been considered in an unstructured way and in light of the facts specific to individual cases.

In practice, and in the absence of a legal test, it is sufficient for a competition authority (or a claimant) to identify some factors hinting at the ‘loyalty-inducing’ nature of the scheme to establish a violation of Article 102 TFEU. This is at least the lesson I draw from Michelin II and British Airways. As soon as any such factors are identified, an abuse is prima facie established and the burden of proof shifts. It is then for the dominant firm to show that the rebate scheme is economically justified.

EU courts, most recently in Intel, have repeatedly held that rebate schemes that reflect cost savings are compatible with Article 102 TFEU. Similarly, they have clarified that a case-by-case assessment is necessary for rebates other than those conditional upon exclusivity. The case law has not evolved in a manner consistent with these principles. In reality, and for all practical purposes, rebate schemes seem to be prima facie prohibited irrespective of whether they are formally conditional upon exclusivity. I would assume that it is uncontroversial to state that, where the law fails to capture the principles on which it is based, as is true here, it needs to change or at least be refined.

The reasons why the case law has moved away from its underlying principles are not a mystery. It has developed in the context of annulment proceedings, where the primary task of EU courts is to review the legality of administrative action. In such a procedural context the GC and the ECJ are, an analysis of the case law suggests, less likely to develop a substantive test that captures the principles against which the lawfulness of the practices in question is assessed. Unsurprisingly, they are more likely to focus instead on whether the analysis carried out by the Commission is sound and whether it supports the conclusions drawn by the authority.

The pending ruling in Post Danmark II shows that the case law, as it stands, does not provide meaningful guidance to courts and authorities in the era of decentralisation – remember there is a decision by the Danish competition authority at the origin of the case. The good thing about the case is that, as much as Post Danmark I, it is a unique opportunity for the Court to clarify the law in the area and to contribute to legal consistency. These are, after all, the very reasons why preliminary references are so important in the EU system of judicial remedies.

Many of you will have read the headlines about the recent auction organised by the Premier League. A couple of weeks ago, Sky and BT paid a record sum of £5.1bn (up from £3bn in 2012) for the TV rights to three seasons of the top English football championship (2016-17 to 2018-19). Sky secured the majority of the rights (126 matches per season out of a total of 168).

Victory for Sky? I am not convinced, and given the behaviour of Sky’s shares the day after the deal was announced, it would seem that I am not alone. In fact, the deal seems to have strengthened BT’s position. Unlike Sky, the incumbent telecommunications operator in the UK had nothing to lose, and everything to gain, in the process. Just consider the aftermath of the auction. BT has managed to force Sky, a major competitor, to pay an unprecedented amount for premium sports content (thereby harming its profitability), without fearing the consequences of not securing the rights in question. Why not? In 2010, Sky was required to supply its sports channels to its competitors. As a result, BT was confident that it would be able to offer top football to its subscribers irrespective of the outcome of the auction.

An analysis of the regulatory landscape indeed shows that the incumbent telecommunications operator benefits disproportionately from the multiple distortions progressively introduced by Ofcom and the European Commission on markets for the acquisition of the rights to premium sports content. Due to intervention by the latter, BT has been able to acquire part of the rights offered by the Premier League, as well as the rights to the UEFA Champions League. As a result of the regime set up by the former in 2010, it is able to offer Sky Sports channels to its subscribers (in addition to its own content). The combination of the two regimes has allowed BT to become a credible provider of pay TV services in little time.

Against this background, the immediate question that springs to mind is why Ofcom would set up regulation having the effect of strengthening the position of the incumbent telecommunications operator at the expense of two of its rivals, Sky and Virgin Media (the main cable operator in the country). In December 2014, Ofcom launched a consultation about whether the regime introduced in 2010 should be amended or removed. If this blog post is accepted as a response to the consultation, here is my reaction: ‘Please remove the compulsory licensing obligation, and the sooner, the better. It is not necessary in any way and is likely to do more harm than good’.

I guess many among you are unfamiliar with the regulation put in place by Ofcom in 2010. If you know little or nothing about it, I am sure you would find it interesting to take a look at the consultation document issued back in December by the authority. It illustrates very well the sort of issues that might arise in areas at the crossroads of competition law and sector-specific regulation. Premium TV content is in a grey area between the two. It is not part of the traditional focus of telecommunications regulation (which is primarily concerned with access to, and interconnection between, networks). At the same time, TV content is obviously relevant for broadband Internet providers offering television services as part of their triple and quadruple play bundles. The competitive advantage, in the form of exclusive rights, enjoyed by one provider is likely to influence downstream competition.

In essence, Ofcom’s seeks comments on whether it is convenient to treat premium TV content in the same way it treats the telecommunications network and thus whether it makes sense to impose compulsory supply and non-discrimination obligations on pay TV providers like Sky. Access to BT’s network ensures a level playing field between the incumbent telecommunications operator and its competitors. Imposing similar obligations in relation to Sky’s premium channels would ensure that all broadband Internet providers are able to compete on an equal footing with the leading pay TV operator in the UK.

You may have asked yourself already whether premium TV content and the telecommunications network are really comparable. If you read the consultation document you are likely to be even less convinced about the convenience of extending to content activities the regulatory regime applying to networks.

Is premium content indispensable for downstream competition? It would make sense to treat networks and premium TV content alike if the latter were an essential facility or an indispensable input to compete on the relevant downstream market. Interestingly, Ofcom’s consultation document provides extensive evidence showing that this is clearly not the case. I have in fact not found a more exhaustive and reliable source of data showing that premium TV content is a far cry from being indispensable for pay TV or triple play providers.

There is nothing anticompetitive in trying to exploit one’s competitive advantages. One should not be surprised that companies want to keep competitive advantages for themselves. Profit-maximising firms tend to be unhappy with the idea of subsidising a competitor. Authorities and courts have long understood that a refusal to supply is, absent exceptional circumstances, a manifestation of healthy rivalry. Curiously, Ofcom seems to claim that Sky’s lack of incentive to supply its premium TV channels to its rivals is anticompetitive. This is certainly the line of reasoning that a competition lawyer is more likely to find strange or surprising.

How do companies compete on the relevant downstream market(s)? It is interesting that the consultation document never seeks to define the relevant downstream market in a systematic way. The dynamics of downstream rivalry (where BT, Sky and Virgin Media compete across the whole range of convergent services) must be understood before one determines whether it is justified to take regulatory action in a particular market segment. The consultation document falls short in this regard. At times, it borders on the tautological. Here and there, Ofcom seems to suggest that obligations relating to the provision of premium sports channels are justified to promote competition on the market for premium sports content.

What are the unintended consequences of regulatory intervention? More than anything, I am concerned about the fact that Ofcom never considers the unintended consequences of regulatory intervention. By and large, pay TV and premium content are examined in isolation. The risk that intervention could strengthen the position of the incumbent telecommunications operator is never considered. Similarly, Ofcom does not question whether it makes sense to favour the commoditisation of triple and quadruple play offers. If premium TV content is far from indispensable, would it not make more sense to favour diversity, as opposed to homogeneous offers? What are the consequences of limiting operators’ scope for differentiating their products? Does regulatory intervention commoditising retail offers harm firms’ incentives to invest and innovate? These are questions to which I do not find a satisfactory answer in the consultation document.

I look forward to Ofcom’s next steps in relation to this consultation. We (read: I) will keep you updated about them. And now with the tradition: I do not have anything to disclose (funnily enough, I had to clarify this back in 2010, when I submitted this paper to a review). In fact, I do not even have a TV set at home. Although I do have a broadband subscription, which I hope to keep many years… with BT.

A very good friend tells me that the world of international arbitration is discovering the mysteries of EU State aid law, and that some of its peculiarities have not been received particularly well (to put it elegantly). Curiously enough, these developments have not gathered much attention so far in the parallel universe of EU competition law. It is a pity, as the questions raised by the interface between these disciplines are genuinely interesting. May an arbitral award amount to State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU? May the Commission order its recovery as a result? Imagine the implications of an affirmative answer to these two questions in other areas of the law.

If you are not familiar with the ongoing debates, you may be interested to know that these issues are being discussed in the Micula case. In December 2013, Romania was ordered to pay around EUR 82 million (plus interest) as a result of an investment dispute. The arbitration tribunal found that the said Member State had breached a Bilateral Investment Treaty with Sweden. Shortly thereafter, the Commission informed the Romanian government that the implementation of the award would amount to new aid within the meaning of Article 108 TFEU and would therefore have to be notified. In addition, it issued a suspension injunction to ensure that Romania would not take any steps in this regard. From the perspective of the Commission, the implementation of the award would conflict with a previous decision declaring a tax incentive to be incompatible with EU State aid law. Romania was thus left torn between two regimes.

If you take a look at the letter submitted by the Commission in Micula, you will realise that the legal and factual scenario is fairly straightforward from the perspective of EU State aid law. I was in fact struggling to find something unusual in the case. If a measure adopted by a Member State is found to be incompatible with the internal market, it is simply natural that any subsequent measure intended to compensate the recipients of the aid for the consequences of a recovery obligation is also found to run counter to the principles set out in Articles 107 and 108 TFEU. If it were possible for a Member State to grant damages in such a context, the whole system would collapse. The ECJ understood early on that, indeed, the ex ante control for the award of State aid would otherwise become meaningless. These ideas stem clearly from cases like Van Calster or Commission v Council (2006).

It does not matter how well-established these principles may be under EU State aid law. From the perspective of international arbitration, I can understand that the intervention of the Commission in cases like Micula is received with surprise, if not shock. How can it be argued that it is unlawful for a Member State to comply with its obligations under the ICSID Convention? The same that I said in relation to EU State aid law in the preceding paragraph could be said in relation to international arbitration. The whole system for the settlement of investment disputes could be jeopardised if such arguments were to be accepted. It is in fact not unusual for States to claim that their domestic regime makes it impossible for them to comply with the award.

Underlying the Micula case there seems to be something that looks like a primacy (or, if one prefers, a kompetenz-kompetenz) issue – a debate that brings me straight out of my comfort zone. It seems to be about determining which of the two legal orders prevails. There are other issues that may be less fundamental but not necessarily less interesting, and on which I hope to work in the coming months. If you read the Commission letter, you will see that the issue of legitimate expectations is understood very differently in EU State aid law and investment arbitration, respectively. It is well-known that legitimate expectations can be validly invoked only in truly exceptional circumstances under the former. Articles 107 and 108 TFEU would not be practicable if the possibility to circumvent recovery obligations were not limited to the narrowest set of scenarios. This is a distinct feature of EU State aid law that is very unlikely to be found in other areas of the law. It should therefore come as no surprise that the principle of legitimate expectations has a broader scope of application in the context of investment arbitration, the point of which is after all to provide a framework for the protection of international investments.