competition | In Principle

Sharing, exchanging or jointly collecting data may be valuable for the businesses involved and for the development of a given industry sector, technological innovation, and, as a result, consumers. Indeed, data are of fundamental importance for the development of the digital economy, either alone or as a basis for functioning of artificial intelligence. Hence, the competitiveness of companies on the market depends on access to relevant data.

The dominance of the US and China in the digital market has forced Europe to take action to reduce over-reliance on solutions developed outside its borders. The desire to maintain international competitiveness requires, among other things, a review of antitrust provisions.

Telenor, a Norwegian telecom, abused its dominant position. This was the ruling pronounced by the EFTA Surveillance Authority under the rules in force in the European Economic Area. The case is worth examining, as the powers of this body also cover the European Union and may apply to the activities of Polish companies.

The new president of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection plans to reinforce the regulator’s activity aimed at preventing negative market impacts. His priority will be elimination of harmful practices—not necessarily punishment. Proceedings are to be conducted faster and more efficiently. There will also be many internal changes at UOKiK.

One method companies have of dealing with the crisis is to cooperate with their rivals. But before entering into such cooperation, it is worth examining whether it constitutes a conspiracy subject to sanctions from the national competition authority, the European Commission or other antitrust bodies.

The president of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) has declared war on sellers unfairly raising prices of products during the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the instruments proposed by the regulator in combating this pathology is establishment by the Ministry of Development of maximum prices and margins on products essential from the perspective of consumers’ interests (a change included in the recent amendment to the Anti-Crisis Act). On this occasion it is worth reviewing the authority vested in the president of UOKiK to regulate product prices under current law.

The amendment to the Anti-Crisis Act includes proposals drafted by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK), intended to increase the financial security of households, ensure access to vital goods and services, and combat price speculation and unjustified increases.

In light of the difficulties associated with the coronavirus epidemic, and joining the global trend under the hashtag #flattenthecurve, competition authorities around the world, including Poland, are introducing, more or less officially, extraordinary operating procedures to avoid spreading the coronavirus. This can have a major impact on proceedings before these authorities, including filing and consideration of applications seeking approval of concentrations.

From 1 June 2020 the regulations on prohibited contractual provisions (abusive clauses), so far applicable only to consumers, will in certain situations also apply to sole traders. This change will generate many practical problems.

A new regulation, Art. 385(5) of the Civil Code, enters into force on 1 June 2020. It expands the application of provisions on abusive clauses to cover sole traders. This provision may have repercussions under the Contractual Advantage Act. The competition authority may treat the use of abusive clauses by an entity holding a contractual advantage in contracts with sole traders as abuse of a contractual advantage.

An interesting ruling has been handed down in Italy in a case involving Facebook’s violation of the collective interests of consumers and data protection. The court held, contrary to common opinion and the social media site itself, that Facebook is not free.

A competition compliance programme should protect an undertaking against commission of violations prosecuted by the competition authority. This applies to anticompetitive arrangements between competitors, or between suppliers and distributors, as well as abuse of a dominant position. Such infringements are threatened by punishment of up to 10% of an undertaking’s annual turnover.