Self-preferencing between all and nothing: in search for a definition under Brazilian competition law
No. 11 (2023-08-28)Author(s)
-
Anna BinottoUniversity of São Paulo
-
Patricia DelucaUniversity of Sao Paulo
Abstract
The term self-preferencing has gained great prominence in the competition and regulation debate involving digital platform markets. However, it has increasingly been used to designate practices with distinct structure, economic rationale, and effects, including in contexts that fall outside of digital markets (even though those conducts already existed in preceding times and were widely scrutinized by competition authorities under the existing legal grounds). In Brazil, the situation is no different. This is due to the lack of a well-established legal test, including definitions about presumptions of illegality and burden of proof, and the attempt to concentrate, under the same “umbrella” diverse and distinct conducts. Following up on debates in international scholarship and, most relevantly, discussions within the European scenario, this article provides initial suggestions for the development of an adequate legal test for the practice of self-preferencing in Brazil. We make a preliminary attempt to differentiate between diverse categories of self-preferencing and suggest, among other aspects, that tests and theories of harm existing in CADE case law should be improved and adapted to drive antitrust analysis for those practices. This is the case, for example, for the classic (or “pure”) pattern of what the scholarship has equated to self-preferencing, being possible to turn to an adaptation of the CADE’s position on the essential facilities doctrine (EFD). We argue the essentiality test should not be completely abandoned, as it stands as a relevant divisor between distinct types of self-preferencing, with relevant enforcement implications, and provide an
initial outline of an adapted legal test to assess essentiality.
References
ACM, “ACM: Apple changes unfair conditions, allows alternative payment methods in dating apps,” available at: https://www.acm.nl/en/publications/acm-apple-changes-unfair-conditions-allows-alternative-payments-methods-dating-apps, accessed 08.09.2022.
AGCM, “A528 - Italian Competition Authority: Amazon fined over €1.128 billion for abusing its dominant position”, available at: https://en.agcm.it/en/media/press-releases/2021/12/A528, accessed 08.09.2022.
Ahlbon, Christian; Leslie, Will; O’riley, Eoin, Self-Preferencing: Between a Rock and a Hard Place, Competition Policy International Antitrust Chronicle, v. 3, n. 2, 2020.
Athayde, Amanda. Direito da concorrência e supermercados: como essas plataformas de dois lados podem trazer riscos aos consumidores? Revista Direito GV, v. 16, n. 1, jan./abr.2020.
Binotto, Anna; Kastrup, Gustavo, Old tools for new problems? - what can be learned from recent decisions in the Google Shopping case, Revista de Direito e Novas Tecnologias, v. 10, 2021.
Bostoen, Friso. The General Court’s Google Shopping Judgment Finetuning the Legal Qualifications and Tests for Platform Abuse. In: Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 2, March 2022, Pages 75–86, 2022.
Bougette, Patrice; Budzinski, Oliver; Marty, Frédéric M., Self-Preferencing and Competitive Damages: A Focus on Exploitative Abuses, Forthcoming in the Antitrust Bulletin, GREDEG Working Paper No. 2022-01, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4028770 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4028770, accessed 31.08.2022.
Bouzoraa, Yasmine, Between Substance and Autonomy: Finding Legal Certainty in Google Shopping, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, v. 13, n. 2, p. 144 - 153, 2022.
CMA, “Investigation into Amazon’s Marketplace,” available at: https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/investigation-into-amazons-marketplace, accessed 08.09.2022.
Colomo, Pablo Ibanez, Self-Preferencing: Yet Another Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles, World Competition, v. 43, n. 4, p. 417, 2020.
___ Pablo Ibanez, Anticompetitive Effects in EU Competition Law, Journal of Corporation Law & Economics, v. 17, n. 2, p. 309 - 363, 2021, p. 315 - 323.
Cordeiro, Alexandre. Essential facility doctrine: A dificuldade de enquadrar casos na doutrina diante da assimetria de informação. In: Jota, 2017.
Cotter, Thomas F. Essential Facilities Doctrine. University of Minnesota Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 08-18, 2008.
Coutinho, Diogo R.; Kira, Beatriz, Adjusting the lens: new theories of harm for digital platforms, Revista de Defesa da Concorrência, v. 9, n. 1, 2021.
Crémer, Jacques; Montjoye, Yves-Alexandre de; Schweitzer, Heike, Competition Policy for the Digital Era: Final Report.
Da Silveira, Paulo Burnier; Fernandes, Victor Oliveira, Google Shopping in Brazil: Highlights of CADE’s Decision and Takeaways for Digital Economy Issues, 2019.
Deutscher, Elias, Google Shopping and the Quest for a Legal Test for Self-Preferencing Under Article 102 TFEU, European Papers, v. 6, n. 3, p. 1345 - 1361, 2021.
Eben, Magali, Fining Google: a missed opportunity for legal certainty? European Competition Journal, v. 14, n. 1, pp. 129 - 151, 2018.
Epic Games, “Australia Free Fortnite,” available at: https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/epic-games-files-legal-proceedings-against-google-in-australia
Fernandes, Victor Oliveira. Direito da Concorrência das Plataformas Digitais: entre abuso de poder econômico e inovação. Revista dos Tribunais, 2022.
Frazão, Ana de Oliveira. Direito da Concorrência: Pressupostos e Perspectivas. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2017.
Gonçalves, Priscila Brolio, A obrigatoriedade de contratar como sanção fundada no direito concorrencial brasileiro, PhD, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2008.
Heinz, Silke, Self-Preferencing - Some Observations on the Push for Legislation at the National Level in Germany, Competition Policy International Antitrust Chronicle, v. 3, n. 2, 2020.
Hoffman, Bruce. Shinn, Garrett, Self-Preferencing and Antitrust: Harmful Solutions for an Improbable Problem, available at: https://www.clearygottlieb.com/-/media/files/cpi--hoffman--final-pdf.pdf, accessed 07.09.2022.
Brazilian Institute for Studies on Competition, Consumption, and International Trade - IBRAC. Unilateral Conduct Guide, 2021, available at: https://ibrac.org.br/UPLOADS/Eventos/497/IBRAC_-_Guia_de_Condutas_Unilaterais.pdf.
G7. Compendium of approaches to improving competition in digital markets, 2021, available at: https://www.jftc.go.jp/houdou/pressrelease/2021/nov/Compendium.pdf, accessed 08.09.2022.
Lee, Sangyun, Main Developments in Competition Law and Policy 2021 - Korea, Kluwer Competition Law Blog, available at: http://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2022/02/14/main-developments-in-competition-law-and-policy-2021-korea/, accessed 03.09.2022.
Lombardi, Claudio, The Italian Competition Authority’s Decision in the Amazon Logistics Case: Self-preferencing and Beyond, available at: https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/the-italian-competition-authoritys-decision-in-the-amazon-logistics-case-self-preferencingand-beyond/.
Mason, Max. “Apple and Google hit with class actions by Australian app users,” available at: https://www.afr.com/technology/apple-and-google-hit-with-class-actions-by-australian-appusers-20220629-p5axpb, accessed 08.09.2022.
Padilla, Jorge; Perkins, Joe; Piccolo, Salvatore, Self-Preferencing in Markets with Vertically-Integrated Gatekeeper Platforms, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance, v. Working Paper No. 582, 2020.
Pargendler, Mariana, The Corporate Governance Obsession, Journal of Corporation Law, v. 42, 2016.
Petit, Nicolas. Theories of Self-Preferencing under Article 102 TFEU: A Reply to Bo Vesterdorf, Competition Law & Policy Debate, 1, 2015, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2592253, accessed 05.09.2022.
Picker, Randy, Structural Separation and Self-Preferencing: What are the Right Lessons of History? Pro Market, 2020.
Salinger, Michael A., Self-Preferencing, The GAI Report on the Digital Economy, 2020.
Salomão Filho, Calixto. Direito Concorrencial. São Paulo: Malheiros, 2013.
Vesterdorf, Bo. Theories of Self-Preferencing and Duty do Deal - two sides of the same coin?, Competition Law & Policy Debate, Volume 1 (1), 2015, p. 4-9, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2561355, accessed 08.09.2022.
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Anna Binotto, Patricia Deluca
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.