France Hits Apple With Record Antitrust Fine
The U.S.-based tech giant breached competition rules by dividing up the wholesale market and imposing resale prices, the French antitrust authority said.
March 16, 2020 at 03:22 PM
4 minute read
France's antitrust authority fined Apple a record-high $1.2 billion Monday, ruling that the U.S.-based tech giant had entered into cartel-like agreements with two wholesalers and abused its market position and economic power to impose higher prices to resellers.
The two wholesalers, Tech Data and Ingram Micro, were fined $84.9 million and $70.2 million, respectively, according to a statement from the Autorité de la Concurrence.
That the total fines were the highest ever assessed in one case by the French authority, and Apple's fine was the highest ever assessed on one company, underscores the "strong impact of these practices on competition" and the "particularly serious" nature of Apple's actions, Isabelle da Silva, president of the competition authority, said in a statement.
Apple said that it would appeal.
The case dates back to a 2012 complaint by eBizcuss, an Apple premium reseller, or a retailer of specialized high-end Apple products. It applied to iPads and other premium Apple products but not to iPhones, the authority said.
The investigation found that Apple divided its products and customers between the two wholesalers, which "somewhat 'sterilized' the wholesale market for Apple products, freezing market share and preventing competition between the different distribution channels," the authority said.
Trading on its position as a must-have product, Apple imposed selling prices on premium resellers so that their prices would match those charged by Apple in its retail stores and on its website, the authority said. "The practice resulted in aligning the selling prices of Apple products for end consumers in almost half the retail market for Apple products," according to the authority.
Finally, the authority found that Apple abused premium resellers' economic dependency by treating them less favorably than the company's own stores—depriving them of stocks of new products, for example, while Apple stores were regularly supplied—thereby weakening or even excluding them from the retail market.
"While a manufacturer is free to organize its distribution system as it sees fit," the authority wrote, it is prohibited under competition law to "undermine competition between its wholesalers by pre-allocating customers to them, to have an agreement with its distributors on the retail prices charged to end consumers, or to abuse the situation of economic dependency of its trading partners, in particular by placing them at a disadvantage compared with its own internal distribution network."
An Apple spokesman, Josh Rosenstock, termed the authority's decision "disheartening" in a statement Monday, adding that it related "to practices from over a decade ago and discards 30 years of legal precedent that all companies in France rely on with an order that will cause chaos for companies over all industries." He could not be reached immediately for further explanation.
Competition authorities in Europe have been intensifying their scrutiny of big technology companies, taking their cues from the EU competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, who has promised to present new regulations aimed at ensuring fair competition in the sector.
The Autorité de la Concurrence in France is an independent administrative body that functions like a court, issuing opinions, pronouncing injunctions and levying fines. Its decisions are subject to appeal to the Court of Appeal of Paris, which rules on disputes of facts and judgment, and to the Court of Cassation, which rules on procedure.
The previous record antitrust fine assessed by the authority was about $385 million on Orange, the former French telecommunications monopoly, in 2015. The authority ruled that Orange had abused its dominant position by offering loyalty discounts and other pricing strategies that could discourage customers from switching to new competitors in the market. Orange said it would change its practices as a result of the ruling, which the company did not appeal.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllManhattan Prosecutors Say They Will Oppose Efforts by Trump Legal Team to Dismiss Case
'We’re Here to Empower People to Make Good Decisions': Why Compliance Chiefs Must Learn to Think Like a Businessperson
Lawyers Among Those Convicted as Hong Kong's High Court Sentences 45 Activists to Prison
Apple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Trending Stories
- 1Weil Practice Leaders Expected to Leave for Paul Weiss, Latham
- 2Senators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anti-Competitive Practices, Fees
- 3Deal Watch: Gibson Dunn, V&E, Kirkland Lead Big Energy Deals in Another Strong Week in Transactions
- 4Advisory Opinion Offers 'Road Map' for Judges Defending Against Campaign Attacks
- 5Commencement of Child Victims Act at Heart of Federal Question Posed to NY's Top Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250