On 17 June, the UK Competition & Markets Authority (“CMA”) published its report on the commercial use of consumer data collected by companies.  The CMA began its review of the issue with a call for information in January.

In short, the CMA concludes that, while consumer data presents some characteristics that sets it apart from other data, these characteristics are not unique to consumer data and the markets in which it is collected and used.  As a result, existing competition and market tools are effective to tackle conduct that may give rise to competition concerns in these markets.  The German Monopolies Commission reached a similar conclusion in its digital markets report published on 6 June.Continue Reading UK CMA Publishes its Report on Commercial Use of Consumer Data

Digital markets are currently the focus of much attention in the European Union (“EU”).  The European Commission recently unveiled its Digital Single Market Strategy, which incorporates DG COMP’s e-commerce sector inquiry.

The issue of the regulation of digital markets, potentially beyond the application of competition law, is also being discussed at national level.  On 1 June 2015, the German Monopolies Commission (“MC”) published its report on digital markets (“Competition Policy: The challenge of digital markets”), with a summary in English.  Generally, the MC takes the position that there is no need for a significant modification of the current legal framework, but suggests increased enforcement of the rules.  In an interesting coincidence of timing, Commissioner Vestager recently expressed caution about adopting new regulation of online platforms that might be overtaken by market developments.  This post provides an overview of the key elements of the MC report.
Continue Reading German Monopolies Commission Publishes its Report on Digital Markets

The Court of Justice of the EU (‘CJEU’) has held that an exclusive choice of forum clause can validly be imposed by so-called “click-wrap” contracts in online B2B transactions (see Case C‑322/14, El Majdoub v. CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH).   The ruling will make it easier for online businesses in the EU to impose a favorable choice of forum in their online B2B contracts, ensuring that they can sue defendants in courts of their own choosing, rather than the defendants’ local courts.

The general EU-wide rule for B2B contractual disputes is that a defendant must be sued in its local courts only (see “Brussels I” Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001)).  However, parties can waive the default rule by agreement “in writing” (Article 23(1)).

To deal with contracts concluded electronically, Article 23(2) states – in the English version of the law – that any “electronic communication” that “provides” a durable record of the agreement is equivalent to “writing”; the French and German versions refer to the mere “possibility” of a durable record being formed.

There has been some uncertainty as to whether mere hyperlinking to terms and conditions is a “communication”.  The case before the Court focused on this point, with the claimant arguing that the relevant terms and conditions should at least have been displayed (automatically) before they placed their order.

Taking a pragmatic view, the CJEU stated that the requirements of Article 23 are met if it is possible to print and save the text of online terms and conditions before a contract is concluded – even if the contractual terms are never actually displayed to the person accepting them.  Providing a hyperlink to a printable version suffices.

Although the Brussels I Regulation has been phased out (as of January 10th, 2015, in favor of the ‘recast’ “Brussels Ia” Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012)), it is likely that the CJEU’s ruling in El Majdoub will equally apply to the new law, given that the relevant provisions of the new law (now contained in Article 25) are in effect identical to those in Article 23 of the original.Continue Reading Court of Justice of the EU Upholds Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses in B2B ‘Click-wrap’ Contracts

In a Public Notice released this week, the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau provided details regarding the procedures by which video programming distributors (including broadcasters and MVPDs) must report video programmers who refuse to provide widely available closed captioning quality certifications.

The procedures described in the Public Notice are an outgrowth of the closed…
Continue Reading FCC Issues Public Notice Concerning Closed Captioning Reporting Procedures

The FCC Media Bureau’s designated May 29, 2015 “Pre-Auction Licensing Deadline” is rapidly approaching.  Full power and Class A facilities must be licensed by this deadline in order to be eligible for protection in the repacking process that will be part of the television incentive auction. For these purposes, facilities subject to a pending application…
Continue Reading Less Than One Month Until May 29, 2015 Pre-Auction Licensing Deadline

On 20 April 2015 the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (“ACM”) published new guidance regarding its enforcement priorities in relation to distribution agreements, noting that its enforcement efforts will be focused on agreements having the most significant impact on consumer welfare.  The 28-page document explains that before opening an investigation, the ACM will first…
Continue Reading Dutch Competition Authority Updates Guidance on Distribution Agreements

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in which it proposes satellite television “market modification” rules to implement Section 102 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR).  STELAR amends the Communications Act and the Copyright Act to give the FCC authority to modify a commercial television broadcast station’s local television market for purposes of satellite carriage rights.  The FCC previously had such authority to modify markets only in the cable carriage context.  The FCC also proposes to change the factors relevant to the market modification process.  Below, we list some of the tentative conclusions and interpretations on which the FCC seeks comment.

The main effect of a market modification is to expand or contract the areas in which a station may elect mandatory carriage under the must-carry rules.  To the extent that a station’s network affiliation or other agreements authorize a station to grant retransmission consent only in the station’s Nielsen DMA, a market modification petition granted by the FCC would not alter the boundaries of that DMA.   However, for stations that have elected retransmission consent, a market modification may have implications with respect to the areas in which such stations’ signals may be carried as “local” signals under the copyright laws.Continue Reading FCC Releases NPRM Regarding STELAR’s Market Modification Provisions

On 2 April 2015, the German Competition Authority (FCO) sent a statement of objections (SO) to Booking.com Deutschland GmbH in relation to its use of “best price” clauses in contracts with hotels in Germany.  The FCO takes the view that, following the decision of the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court confirming the FCO’s decision in proceedings…
Continue Reading FCO sends statement of objections to Booking.com

Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager announced today during a speech at the Bundeskartellamt (German Competition Authority) International Conference on Competition her intention to launch a sector inquiry in the e-commerce sector. The sector inquiry will be formally proposed to the Commission in May. Preliminary findings on the sector inquiry could be ready in mid-2016. Commissioner Vestager stressed:

“It is high time to remove remaining barriers to e-commerce, which is a vital part of a true Digital Single Market in Europe. The envisaged sector inquiry will help the Commission to understand and tackle barriers to e-commerce to the benefit of European citizens and business.”Continue Reading EU Announces E-Commerce Sector Inquiry

The Federal Communications Commission today announced its intent to fine a television station $325,000 — the maximum penalty available — for airing less than three seconds of a pornographic video on a small portion of the screen during an evening newscast.  The Notice of Apparent Liability is a reminder of the FCC’s continued vigorous enforcement of its obscenity and indecency rules.
Continue Reading FCC Plans Maximum Fine for Television Broadcast of Indecent Material