Polish Competition and Consumer Protection Authority v Microsoft: Enforcement of Competition Law in the New Economy and the Risk of Regulatory Error

On 18 June 2003 the Commission presented its Proposal for a Directive concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the Internal Market (the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive). The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive Proposal is based upon the Green Paper on European Union Consumer Protection of 2001 and the reactions to this document in the consultation process as laid down in the follow-up document of 2002. The Proposal tackles the field of unfair competition law insofar as the protection of consumers is concerned.

Download Full-text

Procedural versus competition perspectives on recent CCPC merger remedies: the Berendsen (Elis)/Kings Laundry transaction

Competition Law Journal ◽

10.4337/clj.2020.03.03 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 19 (3) ◽

pp. 128-155

Author(s):

Paul K. Gorecki

Keyword(s):

Phase Ii ◽

Consumer Protection ◽

Competition Law ◽

Three Phase ◽

Merger Remedies ◽

Protection Commission

In a 2019 article in the Competition Law Journal Andrews and Fitzgerald argue that the decisional practice of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC), Ireland's competition agency, in clearing three Phase II mergers, demonstrates an ‘openness to resolving identified competition issues via remedy packages even in highly complex [merger] cases’. However, from a competition economics perspective, based on an examination of one these three cases, the Berendsen (Elis)/Kings Laundry transaction, the remedy package does not mitigate the competition concerns identified by the CCPC. Indeed, the remedy is likely to exacerbate these concerns. The merger should have been prohibited. This article suggests two ways in which the CCPC's merger procedures can be revised so as to ensure greater congruency between the procedural and competition economics perspectives.

Download Full-text

Geo-blocking Regulation: Antitrust or Consumer Protection?

Baltic Yearbook of International Law Online ◽

10.1163/22115897_01801_011 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 18 (1) ◽

pp. 194-207

Author(s):

Klemen Podobnik

Keyword(s):

Consumer Protection ◽

Large Scale ◽

Competition Law ◽

Market Regulation ◽

Trade Regulation ◽

Law And Policy ◽

Functional Consequences ◽

Further Development ◽

European Competition Law

The author attempts to show that the seeming absorption of a large-scale, general geo-blocking prohibition in the field of competition law (antitrust) is unsystematic, and can negatively influence the further development of European competition law and policy and related goals. The positive implications of the GBR regime in the area of consumer protection law (and for trade regulation as such) are not negated. The author, however, attempts to underscore the fact that, in certain constellations, legislative instruments should be very clearly designated, their nature and scope concisely labelled. Formal oversights, such as omission of clear denominations or even plain wrong designations can – in certain circumstances – lead to functional consequences. For this reason the author stresses the view that the GBR is a legislative instrument of market regulation and consumer protection and has no real appreciable link to antitrust.

Download Full-text