Amazon fails in its lawsuit in opposition to stricter supervision earlier than the BGH | EUROtoday

Get real time updates directly on you device, subscribe now.

As of: April 23, 2024 8:38 p.m

In 2022, the Federal Cartel Office licensed Amazon's “outstanding cross-market importance” and positioned it underneath stricter commentary. The firm filed a criticism – and has now failed earlier than the Federal Court of Justice.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has sided with the competitors watchdog within the Federal Cartel Office's authorized dispute with Amazon. The Federal Court of Justice's Cartel Senate confirmed the evaluation “that Amazon has an outstanding cross-market importance for competition”. The corresponding classification by the Cartel Office was subsequently authorized. This clears the way in which for the Bonn authorities to punish the corporate extra severely sooner or later and probably additionally ban sure enterprise practices.

In July 2022, the Federal Cartel Office licensed that Amazon had excellent market energy on the premise of a brand new regulation and thus positioned it underneath stricter commentary. This classification was step one in a two-stage course of. In a second step, the corporate might be banned from sure practices. For instance, the net large might be prohibited from giving choice to its personal provides when displaying them.

Ongoing proceedings in opposition to different corporations

Amazon lodged a criticism in opposition to the classification, however was unable to prevail earlier than the BGH. Andreas Mundt, President of the Federal Cartel Office, welcomed the BGH choice: “It gives us momentum for our ongoing proceedings against Amazon, with which we want to ensure that traders on the Amazon marketplace are treated fairly.” The ruling additionally strengthens the place in ongoing proceedings in opposition to different Internet corporations corresponding to Alphabet (Google), Apple, Meta (Facebook) and Microsoft, in addition to attainable new proceedings.

Amazon criticized the BGH choice. “The retail market, both online and offline, is very large and extremely competitive,” stated a spokeswoman. “We disagree with the court’s decision and will consider further appeals.”

“Excellent access to relevant to competition Data”

The Cartel Senate of the BGH handled the matter for the primary time in June and at the moment didn’t discover any violations of European or German regulation within the Federal Cartel Office's actions. The judges now confirmed that the antitrust watchdogs had accurately decided that Amazon had vital “strategic and competitive potential” that enabled it to “exercise significant influence on the business activities of third parties.”

According to this, Amazon has “a dominant position on the German market for online marketplace services for commercial traders”. The group has “outstanding financial strength and outstanding access to data relevant to competition, such as customer and user data, data from the operation of trading platforms and advertising platforms.” Likewise, because the operator of quite a few on-line marketplaces, Amazon has a key place for retailers' entry to their gross sales markets, the courtroom famous. The Federal Cartel Office rightly decided that Amazon has “outstanding cross-market importance for competition.”

In June, the Cartel Senate didn’t need to rule out the likelihood that it would develop into essential to submit inquiries to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. However, the judges now additionally dominated out this and referred specifically to the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA), which has now come into power: The EU Commission has additionally categorised Amazon as a central web firm, a so-called gatekeeper, underneath the DMA.

There are two different proceedings pending earlier than the BGH which can be comparable. While the Google mother or father Alphabet and the Facebook group Meta accepted a corresponding classification, Amazon and Apple filed a lawsuit. A particular characteristic is that the BGH decides immediately on these complaints from corporations and never, as is normally the case, the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court within the first occasion. This is meant to allow last courtroom choices to be made earlier.