By: Kevin Coates (Covington Competition)
The European Commission published its draft guidelines on exclusionary abusive conduct by dominant firms under Article 102 TFEU (the “Draft Guidelines”) on 1 August 2024. These guidelines represent a significant departure from the 2009 Enforcement Priorities Guidance on Article 82 [now Article 102] (the “Priorities Guidance”). Whereas the Priorities Guidance focused heavily on economic concepts, the Draft Guidelines now emphasize the Commission’s interpretation of European Court rulings.
The consultation on the Draft Guidelines is open until 31 October 2024. Practical suggestions grounded in, and building upon, established case law are likely to have a stronger influence on the Commission’s final guidelines than purely economic arguments.
Similar to the Priorities Guidance, the Draft Guidelines concentrate on exclusionary conduct—behavior that benefits dominant firms by driving competitors out of the market—while largely excluding exploitative conduct, such as excessive pricing or unfair trading conditions, where a firm leverages its market power. However, in contrast to the Priorities Guidance, the Draft Guidelines acknowledge overlaps between exclusionary and exploitative behavior. They state that “principles relevant to the assessment of dominance (section 2) and the justifications based on objective necessity and efficiencies (section 5) are also relevant for the assessment of other forms of abusive conduct, such as exploitative abuses” (paragraph 11) and that “the same conduct by a dominant undertaking may have both exclusionary and exploitative effects” (footnote 17).
Additionally, the Draft Guidelines expand their scope to include collective dominance, rather than focusing solely on single-firm dominance.
These Draft Guidelines are significant not only for signaling how the Commission intends to enforce Article 102 against dominant companies—an approach already reflected in practice—but also for revealing how the Commission interprets the evolving case law from European Courts since the Priorities Guidance, and how it seeks to shape its future development. Since the Priorities Guidance was introduced in 2009, its principles have seen mixed outcomes in court decisions.
Featured News
Nvidia and Microsoft Sued for Allegedly Undercutting AI Technology Patent Prices
Sep 5, 2024 by
CPI
White & Case Strengthens Antitrust and M&A Practices with New Partner Additions
Sep 5, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Dismisses Antitrust Lawyers’ Fee Demand Over JetBlue-Spirit Deal
Sep 5, 2024 by
CPI
Boston Landlords Named as US Sues RealPage Over Alleged Rent-Inflating Practices
Sep 5, 2024 by
CPI
Judge to Weigh Landmark NCAA Settlement Proposal in Antitrust Lawsuit
Sep 5, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Canada & Mexico
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Competitive Convergence: Mexico’s 30-Year Quest for Antitrust Parity with its Northern Neighbor
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Competition and Digital Markets in North America: A Comparative Study of Antitrust Investigations in Mexico and the United States
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Recent Antitrust Development in Mexico: COFECE’s Preliminary Report on Amazon and Mercado Libre
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
The Cost of Making COFECE Disappear
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI