European Commission Hits Qualcomm With $272M Antitrust Fine
The EC found the company sold products below cost to drive a competitor out of the market. The ruling marks the second time European regulators have fined Qualcomm: Last year the company was slapped with a $1.1 billion fine.
July 18, 2019 at 02:55 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Qualcomm was fined €242 million ($272 million) Thursday by European Union antitrust regulators for predatory pricing in the chipset market. The European Commission found that the company sold its products below cost in order to drive a competitor out of the market.
The ruling marks the second time European regulators have fined Qualcomm: Last year the company was ordered to pay €997 million ($1.1 billion) for paying Apple to use only its chips in iPhones—a tactic aimed at thwarting rivals.
Thursday's fine was 1.27% of Qualcomm's revenue last year and “aimed at deterring market players” from trying the same thing the EU said.
Margrethe Vestager, the EU's antitrust chief, said in a statement that Qualcomm sold chipsets, which are key components that enable mobile devices to connect to the internet, below cost to key customers with the intention of eliminating a competitor.
“Qualcomm's strategic behaviour prevented competition and innovation in this market, and limited the choice available to consumers in a sector with a huge demand and potential for innovative technologies,” she said.
Qualcomm said it would appeal the Commission's decision. “On appeal, we will expose the meritless nature of this decision,” Qualcomm executive vice president and general counsel Don Rosenberg said in a statement.
The Commission found that Qualcomm abused its dominant position in the market for 3G baseband chipsets by selling some of its products below the cost of production to handset makers Huawei and ZTE. Qualcomm did this in order to eliminate Icera, its main rival in that market segment, the Commission said.
The investigation found that Qualcomm's market share of the baseband chipset market was approximately 60%—almost three times that of its biggest competitor.
Based on a price-cost test and a range of evidence about the state of the market, the Commission concluded that Qualcomm's action had been targeted to maximize the impact on Icera's business while minimizing the effect on its own revenues.
This prevented Icera from competing in the market, stifled innovation and ultimately reduced choice for consumers, the Commission said.
In May 2011, Icera was acquired by U.S. tech company Nvidia, which decided to wind down its baseband chipset business line in 2015.
Qualcomm's Rosenberg said in the company's statement that the Commission's decision was “unsupported by the law, economic principles or market facts.” He said the company expected the decision to be reversed on appeal.
The two customers the Commission investigated said they favoured Qualcomm's chips “not because of price but because rival chipsets were technologically inferior,” he said, adding that the decision was based on a “novel theory of alleged below-cost pricing over a very short time period and for a very small volume of chips.”
“There is no precedent for this theory, which is inconsistent with well-developed economic analysis of cost recovery, as well as Commission practice,” Rosenberg said.
In 2009, the Commission also fined chipmaker Intel for anti-competitive practices in the chipset market. The biggest ever antitrust fine imposed by the Commission was a €2.4 billion ($2.7 billion) sanction levied on Google in 2017 for favouring its Google Shopping service in online search results.
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 AllIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readMorrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Trending Stories
- 1Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
- 2Biden commutes sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates, including two convicted of California murders
- 3Avoiding Franchisor Failures: Be Cautious and Do Your Research
- 4De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
- 5Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
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