EU Antitrust Head Plans Review of Tech Companies' Market Power
"We have to keep focusing on what happens when you have dominant companies in these fast-moving markets," Margrethe Vestager said.
October 08, 2019 at 02:47 PM
4 minute read
The EU's antitrust czar is planning to review definitions of market dominance, to deal with the power of fast-growing tech companies.
Margrethe Vestager, who has been nominated for a second term as the European commissioner for competition policy, told lawmakers, "we have to figure out what constitutes market power", when she appeared before the European Parliament for her confirmation hearing.
"When you de facto own a market… the rule you set is not fair competition but 'my own products first'," she said. "We have to keep focusing on what happens when you have dominant companies in these fast-moving markets."
Vestager gave the example of the business opportunities offered by artificial intelligence and the importance of controlling a lot of data, as major issues for competition authorities. "If you don't have the right data, it's very difficult to provide the services," she said.
Apologising for a biblical reference, Vestager, who is the daughter of two Lutheran pastors, said: "We shouldn't end up in a situation where those that have should be given more."
Vestager was asked about breaking up companies as a remedy to market dominance. She said that, while breaking up companies is a "tool" she could use, "my obligation is to do the least intrusive thing to restore competition to a market".
She said the Commission's remedies in antitrust cases were able to restore competition in markets affected by a dominant company. Citing the example of the Android case, in which she fined Google €4.34 billion and ordered it to give consumers the option of downloading rivals' applications, she said the company was forced "to open a marketplace that was otherwise, because of illegal behaviour, completely occupied by themselves".
Alec Burnside, a partner at Dechert's Brussels office, said: "Margrethe Vestager is plainly exercised by the ineffectiveness of the remedies imposed so far on Google. She's focused on using the available toolkit to 'reinstate competition'. We can expect that to be a focus of future work."
Vestager, who has been given responsibility for boosting the EU's digital performance as well as retaining the competition brief, rejected suggestions that there would be a conflict of interest between her two roles. She insisted that the independence of decision-making in EU competition policy was "non-negotiable". Vestager said she would continue to rely on the independent advice of the competition department's chief economist, as well as the commission's legal service, in making the right decisions to safeguard competition.
"The legal service… know that they will have to defend the cases in court. Which means of course that they are very particular that there is no interference from anything else than what they can defend," she said.
Vestager, who has launched a series of cases against EU countries' sweetheart tax deals for multinationals, said she will continue to work to ensure that tax deals do not distort competition in the bloc's internal market.
Asked about plans for a digital tax on the activities of companies that sell their products and services digitally, Vestager said she hopes that a global agreement on digital tax can be found, but if that is not possible, she said, "we will do it ourselves", referring to the EU.
Vestager's pursuit of U.S. tech companies, including Apple, over tax deals has earned her the ire of U.S. President Donald Trump, who said she "really hates the U.S.".
Her confident performance before members of the European Parliament makes it almost certain that she will be approved for a second term as a commissioner. The entire 28-member Commission needs the backing of the European Parliament before it can take up office as planned on November 1.
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 AllCanada’s Antitrust Watchdog Sues Google For Billions Over Ad Practices
3 minute readMorais Leitão Expands in Asia with Timor-Leste Partnership
Funder Behind Mastercard Case Says Settlement 'Struck Without Our Agreement'
Trending Stories
- 1'Great News' for Businesses? Judge Halts Transparency Mandate
- 2Consilio Announces ‘Native AI Review,’ Expanding Its Gen AI E-Discovery Offerings
- 3Federal Judge Hits US With $227,000 Sanction for Discovery Misconduct
- 4Elon Musk Has a Lot More Than a 'Tornetta' Appeal to Resolve in Del. Court
- 5Litigation Funder Behind Mastercard Case Says Settlement 'Struck Without Our Agreement'
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