Purpose of the CPC network

In order to eliminate and remedy problematic practices for the future, an infringing business can offer a commitment package to the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network (CPC), which brings together the European Commission and national authorities. The CPC will engage in negotiations with the business concerned if coordinated action at the EU level is warranted with regard to the conduct in question to address cross-border consumer protection problems affecting a wide range of consumers. Where this is deemed necessary, the authorities involved in the coordinated action will invite the business that has engaged in the problematic commercial practice with an EU dimension to offer commitments to remedy the infringement within a specified time limit.

Joint action against Vinted

On 18 June 2024, the European Commission announced that, as a result of such joint action, Vinted had made a commitment to change its price communication practices. Vinted is an online marketplace that allows users to trade with each other selling and buying certain products. Negotiations between the Lithuanian-based company and the Lithuanian consumer protection authority, which coordinated the joint European action, started in 2021.

The joint action was prompted by a number of complaints about Vinted’s price communication practices, including the automatic addition of a charge to the total amount of the purchase price (the so-called “buyer protection fee“), which consumers were not informed about in advance. According to the assessment of the authorities involved in the joint action, this practice could constitute a breach of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.

Vinted’s commitments

As a result of the concerted European action, Vinted has agreed that both its website and its mobile app will

a) inform consumers in advance and in a timely manner of the total price of the products offered for sale, including, in particular, the buyer protection fee, which is automatically added to each purchase. In the case of Vinted, the buyer protection fee might be viewed as a consideration for using the platform. Pursuant to Vinted’s policy, when it comes to Hungary, this fee is a flat fee of HUF 280 plus 5% of the product’s price (including VAT). Similar practices, known as “drip pricing” in consumer protection jargon, have previously been addressed by the GVH, Hungary’s competition authority, in proceedings against various companies such as Viagogo, Eventim, and Airbnb. Drip pricing is a practice whereby consumers are only made aware of the full price of a product or service at the very end of the purchase process, which is clearly a matter of concern from a consumer protection perspective;

b) refrain from advertising or promotions that give consumers the false impression that Vinted is free of charge;

c) provide more accurate and transparent information to users regarding

i. the process for requesting a refund under its customer protection policy, which is applicable if the purchased products are not delivered or are damaged;

ii. the process for reviewing counterfeits, including the steps consumers should take to claim a refund if the product they have purchased is found to be counterfeit;

iii. the identity verification process (including, in particular, the documents and information to be submitted), which is a prerequisite for users to be able to sell products on Vinted;

iv. Vinted’s rating policy (“Feedback Policy”), including how average user feedback (“average star rating”) is calculated, the difference between automatic feedback from Vinted and feedback posted by users, and how users can report inappropriate feedback (for example, feedback that contains personal information or an unlawful element).

“Compliance with the commitments will be monitored by the CPC network, and if the authorities find that the commitments are not being met in practice, national enforcement proceedings could be launched against the company operating Vinted, potentially resulting in sanctions” notes CERHA HEMPEL’s Boglárka Priskin.

According to the Commission’s press release, Vinted did not agree with the CPC’s request to inform consumers at the beginning of the purchase process that the prices indicated do not include delivery charges and, where possible, to inform consumers in advance of the minimum delivery charge to be applied. Vinted presumably assumed that the average, reasonably informed and reasonably observant consumer would be aware that delivery charges are payable in addition to the product price and the buyer protection fee, depending on the delivery method chosen.

The commitments offered by Vinted go well beyond the original price communication problem, and as a result of the joint action, the company has made a commitment to implement a package of various measures that will affect a number of areas of its operations, from refunds to rating. In doing so, Vinted will provide users with more transparent communication, policies and operations (e.g. more transparent rules on price refunds).

Such a comprehensive intervention is likely to benefit not only consumers (by addressing a wide variety of consumer protection issues) but also businesses and national authorities by avoiding the need to launch a costly consumer or competition supervision procedure or to pay fines that often reach millions of euros. However, the Commission has highlighted that this is not the case for Vinted, which is currently the subject of supervision proceedings in more than one Member State, probably due to other issues detected.

There was a similar case in Hungary when the GVH did not join the joint action of the CPC in the Booking.com case but fined the company HUF 2.5 billion in its own enforcement proceedings. The lack of joint action in such cases is clearly detrimental to large companies operating in many European countries.

Online marketplaces should pay particular attention to legal compliance, in particular, to ensure that their policies applicable to consumers are in line with EU law and that they are drafted with professional diligence, as new EU rules (e.g. the DSA) offer highly effective tools to take actions against companies that do not comply with the law (e.g. product liability rules). Starting from 28 May 2022, thanks to the transposition of the Omnibus Directive into Hungarian law, online marketplaces have additional obligations to provide consumers with information prior to the conclusion of distance contracts concerning the matters described in Article 11/A of the Government Regulation on Web Shops (for example, whether or not the third party from whom the consumer is buying on the online marketplace is a business).

Commitments by Tinder

Alongside Vinted, Tinder (one of the most popular dating apps) was also targeted by the CPC after a Swedish study published in 2022 concluded that Tinder’s pricing practice was not transparent and that it offered the same service to different consumers at different prices. As a result of the network’s collective action, Tinder agreed to provide more accessible and clear information to consumers on its personalised pricing practices. By mid-April 2024, Tinder agreed

i. not to apply age-based personalised pricing without clearly informing consumers in advance;

ii. clearly inform consumers that it is personalising discounts on premium service prices through the use of automated software and why it is offering personalised discounts to the consumer concerned (for example, because the consumer did not wish to subscribe to Tinder premium services at the normal price).

“Pursuant to Article 11 (1) q) of the Government Decree on Web Shops, Hungarian businesses are now required to inform consumers in a clear and comprehensible manner before concluding a distance contract as to whether the consideration for the products or services under the contract is personalised on the basis of automated decision-making. Although this requirement may at first sight appear to be a subsidiary rule, it is nevertheless an important obligation to provide information, since the CPC’s joint action against Tinder was, in fact, based on a breach of this rule“, points out Ms Priskin.

Authors: Dr. Boglárka Priskin

The post Stronger regulatory overview of online marketplaces and digital businesses appeared first on Versenyben vagyunk - a CERHA HEMPEL versenyjogi blogja.

Probably everyone has encountered at least some of the issues surrounding the world of electronic games in one way or another, because unlike previous generations, people today play games beyond their childhood and adolescence. In addition to the myriad of role-playing games, adult board games and card tournaments, the proliferation of online video games has reached unprecedented proportions. And as is the case with increasingly popular and therefore inevitably lucrative ‘industries’, it did not take long for consumer protection aspects to come to light. Experts, Boglárka Priskin senior attorney and Márton Kocsis partner, from CERHA HEMPEL Dezső & Partners Law Firm are here to help you understand the consumer protection aspects of the ever-expanding world of online video games.

Commercial practices in the digital space are increasingly coming to the attention of European consumer authorities and policymakers. The videogame sector also has major importance for the EU economy, with a total estimated value of €23.3 billion in 2020, according to the European Parliament’s report on eSports and Video Games, whilst more than 80,000 people in the EU are working in this innovative sector.

The most concerns that the EU and the national authorities of its Member States have about consumer protection issues in the gaming sector (including games on PCs, mobile phones and game consoles) are related to in-game advertising, offers, in-game / virtual currencies and random loot boxes. Practices by game developers have also attracted the attention of policymakers and public authorities in several Member States because they are primarily (but not exclusively) targeted at children and minors. According to the European Commission’s new European strategy for a child-friendly internet, 73% of European children aged 6-10, 84% of children aged 11-14 and 74% of young people aged 15-24 play video games. For the European population aged 6-64, the figure is 50%.

Video games and online games are available in a variety of business models, such as the so-called “pay to win” model, where the game is available for free (“freemium”), but players can buy in-game add-ons and items through microtransactions for real money, thus gaining an advantage over other players who do not buy paid content. A significant proportion of online games also have their own in-game (virtual) currency, which might or even must be used in some instances to make in-game progress. The in-game purchase of digital goods or services, even with virtual in-game currency, has recently become one of the most important sources of revenue for game developers. According to a study by the Norwegian consumer protection authority, in 2021, video game giant Electronic Arts generated revenues of more than $1.62 billion from in-game purchases for the game FIFA21 alone.

The aim of this article is to describe the most common consumer protection problems related to commercial practices in video games and the policy measures that have been taken in response to them in Europe in recent years. Although the Hungarian authorities have not yet been active in connection with these consumer protection issues, European trends suggest that this will almost certainly not be long in coming. It is therefore important for businesses to be aware of the risks of advertising and paid content in video games and to prepare for mitigating these risks effectively.

In-game currencies and in-game transactions

One of the main consumer protection problems with in-game currencies in video games is that players, especially children, may not realise that they are spending real money on the game and, even if they do, it is difficult for them to keep track of how much they have actually spent. The process of calculating the conversion of in-game currencies into real money, and the exchange rate, is often not communicated to consumers clearly and comprehensibly by developers. Uncertainty about the real value of in-game currencies can be increased by the fact that, in addition to being purchased, these virtual currencies can often be acquired in the game itself, and that different games and even platforms (e.g. TikTok) exchange their own currencies at different rates. This can lead to consumers spending more than they are aware of or would like to. Untimely or incomplete information about the exchange rate of gaming currencies may constitute a misleading commercial practice under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) and the Hungarian law that has transposed it.

The fact that virtual currencies are generally not redeemable for real money may also raise consumer protection issues. This can be particularly problematic if a company developing a game does not properly inform consumers of this fact before the purchase of the in-game currency, and if a consumer wishes to stop playing the game, they can only do so at a financial loss (this is the so-called “consumer lock-in” phenomenon, i.e., a restriction on consumers switching between different service providers, which we have already reported on in our previous article).

In the case of microtransactions settled with an in-game currency, it is also questionable whether consumers will enjoy the rights granted in Directive (EU) 2019/770 (and its Hungarian equivalent) in relation to digital purchases. While purchase transactions with real money fall within the scope of the Directive, the rights of consumers in relation to transactions with an in-game currency require further clarification by the legislators or the regulators.

In a Notice on the interpretation of the UCPD, published at the end of 2021, the European Commission stated that in the case of offers for in-game purchases, the essential characteristics of the product must be clearly presented and the price of virtual items must be clearly and visibly displayed in real currency. If the price cannot be reasonably calculated in advance, the trader must indicate how the price is calculated.

Loot boxes

Loot boxes/surprise boxes are content purchased within each game for real money or in-game currency, usually containing random items that can be used in the game (e.g. weapons, virtual character appearance “skins”, ability cards, in-game currency, progression options etc.). The exact content of a loot box cannot be known by the consumer before payment, so it is something of a pig in a poke. According to a study by the Norwegian consumer protection authority, the sale of loot boxes is highly profitable for the video game industry, generating more than $15 billion in global revenues in 2020.

Loot boxes also contain gambling elements and can therefore be addictive (especially for children and minors), and many Member States have investigated or are investigating whether or not loot boxes should be subject to stricter gambling rules. In the Netherlands, for example, the Supreme Administrative Court has concluded that loot boxes in the game FIFA22 are not covered by the Dutch gambling legislation because they are not a game in their own right but are an integral part of a game of skill. The court ruled that it remains necessary to assess the problems with loot boxes in the context of general consumer protection legislation. A study on loot boxes commissioned by the European Parliament cites a 2018 ruling by the Belgian Gambling Control Authority which held that certain types of loot boxes available in the games Overwatch, FIFA18 and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive met the legal requirements for gambling, regardless of whether the winnings from the loot boxes could be converted into real money or not. As a consequence, the Belgian authorities obliged video game developers to remove loot boxes from games offered in Belgium. In Spain and Finland, legislation is also being prepared to tighten up the rules on loot boxes to protect underage consumers.

In 2020, the Italian Competition Authority accepted the commitments of the Electronic Arts Group. The video game developer agreed to provide clearer and more explicit information to consumers about the nature and price of in-game purchases and loot boxes, to draw consumers’ attention to paid content, and to allow a default setting of €0 for accounts of consumers aged 16 to 18, which can only be increased with parental consent.

In the already referenced Notice published at the end of 2021, the European Commission clearly stated that the presence of random paid content, including the likelihood of random items, must be clearly communicated to consumers. In the Notice, the Commission also clarified that the sale of loot boxes available in the game must comply with the obligation to provide information on the price and essential characteristics of the product under the Consumer Rights Directive and the UCPD.

Dark patterns and in-game advertising

Through manipulative game design (so-called “dark patterns”), developers can also design the interface of a game in such a way that the design and the visual elements of the game can significantly limit the freedom of choice, especially with regard to financial decisions, thus “persuading” the consumer to make a decision that they may not have intended to make. For example, in-game offers may be timed by developers to coincide with the most exciting moments in the game, or loot boxes may be available for a limited time and in limited quantities, which may make consumers more inclined to make a purchase. Such game design and visual elements may even constitute aggressive commercial practices under current consumer protection rules. Likewise, in-game offers that take into account players’ weaknesses and known addictions when designing and timing the offer may also constitute aggressive commercial practices.

The Commission’s Notice also underlines that in-game promotions and advertising must be clearly identified and distinguishable from other elements of the game, otherwise they may be considered as misleading commercial practices.

In addition, the UCPD and the equivalent Hungarian legislation prohibit in-game commercial practices in which manufacturers encourage children to buy certain content, such as certain items needed to progress, or persuade an adult to make the purchase instead of them.

Developments in the European Union

On 18 January 2023, the European Parliament published a detailed resolution calling on the European Commission to include in its ongoing fitness check of EU consumer protection legislation on digital fairness an assessment of whether the current consumer protection legal framework is sufficient to address consumer protection issues related to loot boxes and in-game purchases. The Parliament also asked the Commission to pay particular attention to the protection of minors and underage users. The Parliament stated that if Commission were to conclude in the course of this inquiry that legal protection in the area of video games was inadequate, it should bring forward a legislative proposal to make adaptations to the current legal framework. We reported on the Commission’s fitness check in our article last year. The Parliament also called on national consumer authorities and the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network (“CPC Network”) to enforce existing consumer protection rules in the video games sector.

Several competition authorities and consumer organisations have commented on the Commission’s Fitness Check. The Dutch Competition Authority took a strict position and recommended that the Commission ban loot boxes and in-game currencies available to children. In the event that the Commission did not see any justification for banning them, the Dutch authority suggested that the Commission should take steps to ensure that consumers have the same rights in in-game purchases paid for with virtual currency as they would if they were making real money transactions. According to the Dutch authority, there should be a legal obligation for video game developers to display the prices in real currency and to provide information on the odds of winning in the case of loot boxes. The Authority also proposed that any clause in the terms of use of video games stating that game currencies were non-refundable should be considered an unfair contract term under the terms the unfair terms Directive.

In its position paper, the European Consumer Organisation stressed that researchers and regulators should have access to the algorithms and data sets involved in the operation of loot boxes in order to better understand them, conduct research on them in the public interest and have the ability to make regulatory proposals to policymakers.

While the Commission is mapping and, where appropriate, amending the existing consumer protection regulatory framework, there is much that the video games industry can do to ensure compliance. Such action from developers could include, for example, providing parental controls on playing time and maximum spending limits for games aimed at minors and children, or making gameplay without currency and loot boxes the default for accounts created by minors. Parents could also benefit if more market players used the Single European Game Information System (“PEGI”), which can provide parents with clear information on the content of the game (e.g. whether paid content is available), the recommended age for the game, and help parents choose the right game content for their children. The European Parliament has also asked the Commission to examine the feasibility of introducing the PEGI system into European law so that it would be compulsory for all operators. An example for a good initiative is My Mobile Family, a consumer awareness campaign launched by Hungary’s National Media and Infocommunications Authority (NMHH), which advises parents on what they can do to ensure their children’s digital safety.

Companies in the video game industry should therefore be prepared, as they already risk heavy fines under current rules for practices that are not subject to proper legal scrutiny at present, with the introduction of even stricter rules expected in the future. Relying on the assistance of professionals with expertise in consumer protection law, IT professionals and business leaders can stand a better chance of navigating the treacherous waters of these often murky issues.

Authors: Dr. Boglárka Priskin and Dr. Márton Kocsis

The post Online Gaming consumers appeared first on Versenyben vagyunk - a CERHA HEMPEL versenyjogi blogja.

The Hungarian Competition Authority (GVH) increased the fines imposed on companies that were involved in the Danube shipping cartel and challenged the GVH’s decision in court despite having received leniency. The GVH increased the fine on the grounds of a lack of full, good faith and continuous cooperation, despite the fact that the companies had only challenged the legality of the procedure. It is therefore advisable to pay attention to what is and is not allowed, even if the GVH previously appeared to accept offers of cooperation from infringers who had been caught in the act.

Background – the Danube shipping cartel:

In July 2021, the GVH opened an investigation into a suspected cartel in a public tender that had been announced by the Budapest Transport Corporation (BKV) regarding the operation passenger ships on the Danube. The Authority found that the statements of some bidders were practically identical word for word, which is generally a good indication of cartel behaviour. It later emerged that the companies had shared their bid prices before submitting their tenders and that the tender documents had been prepared by an employee of one of the companies. In addition, two of the four companies (which were members of two company groups) were only established a few days before the deadline for the submission of the tenders.

Given the clarity of the situation, all four companies (and two company groups) applied for leniency, i.e. they admitted their “guilt”, helped the GVH uncover the cartel and voluntarily provided the evidence against themselves, thus facilitating the investigation. In the light of their cooperation, the GVH reduced the fines of the cartel members by almost a third and finally imposed a total fine of only HUF 6.5 million (the fine seems light because it is never determined primarily by the gravity of the infringement but by the turnover of the companies involved – in this case, the companies concerned were small).

Promises broken – the GVH’s press release:

The GVH issued a press release on 17 July 2023, announcing that they had withdrawn the 30% fine reduction for the cartel members. The GVH stated that the companies may have admitted the infringement, but by subsequently challenging the Authority’s decision on the infringement in court they made it clear that they had no intention to cooperate in the procedure. The Competition Act requires companies to cooperate fully, in good faith and on a continuous basis in order to obtain favourable treatment, which, according to the GVH, was not the situation in this case, as the companies’ petition to the court showed. As a result, the fine reduction was cancelled and the fine imposed on the shipping cartel participants was increased to HUF 10 million.

Penance pays – what leniency policy is:

Under the leniency policy, companies involved in an infringement can obtain significant benefits if they voluntarily reveal the infringement to the GVH and provide evidence to the Authority to help it close its investigation. The leniency policy can also lead to a reduction of, or even a complete immunity from, fines if companies cooperate with the GVH. The level of reduction depends on each company’s contribution to the detection of the infringement, where a high level of cooperation may lead to a reduction of up to 50% or no fine at all. So the leniency policy can make it worthwhile for companies to cooperate with the GVH, while it obviously makes the GVH’s job a lot easier.

The Competition Act sets out a number of requirements as conditions for the application of leniency policy, such as the admission of the infringement, cessation of participation in the infringement or refraining from destroying evidence. In the shipping cartel case, the GVH did not say that these conditions had not been met; it only questioned that the cartel members had any intent to cooperate, which had to be bona fide, full and continuous. The most important elements of the cooperation obligation are set out in the Leniency Notice published by the GVH, including the need for infringers to be available to the authority at all times, to provide information requested by the GVH in a timely manner and to refrain from destroying evidence.

It is important to point out that companies do not have to waive their right to legal remedies while applying for leniency (unlike, for example, in a settlement procedure, where a company under investigation by the GVH does not have to present self-incriminating evidence, but can expedite the investigation by admitting the infringement and waiving its right to a remedy). For example, if a company that participates in the leniency programme disputes the level of the fine imposed on it or has concerns about the legality of the procedure, it has the right to seek legal remedy under competition law without the cancellation of the fine reduction received under the leniency policy. Obviously, this does not mean that it can dispute the existence of an infringement that it has already admitted.

When it is legitimate to raise a further defence – legal remedies in leniency proceedings:

An important factor to consider in the shipping cartel case is that publicly available information suggests that the cartel members only disputed the legality of the procedure and not the fact that the infringement had taken place, which they had previously admitted. The GVH itself expressly stated in its press release of 17 July 2023 that the remedies against its decisions were always guaranteed by the Competition Act (including in the case of leniency proceedings), and even highlighted judicial control over administrative decisions as an important criterion of legal certainty.

The GVH argued that the companies’ disputing of the legality of the procedure in their lawsuit demonstrated a lack of continuous, good faith and full cooperation. However, the prohibition of “disputing the legality” of a procedure is not defined in the Competition Act or the Leniency Notice as a criterion for the application of leniency. Cooperation is a relatively broad term, but the Leniency Notice does identify a number of circumstances which, while not exhaustive, may help to define the requirements for cooperation. According to the Notice, the GVH expects leniency applicants to fulfil these conditions in particular, i.e. the fulfilment of these conditions does not in itself constitute a condition for leniency, but their absence may exclude the granting of favourable treatment. However, it is important to note that the Notice does not suggest that an act such as disputing a GVH decision would prevent the relevant company from being considered cooperative. In the GVH’s words, the cartel members “made it clear that they had no intention to cooperate during the procedure”,  which is a statement that we believe will be difficult to prove simply on the basis that the companies went to court to dispute the legality of the procedure. Proving intent, and in particular past intent, in administrative litigation is likely to be quite difficult in any case.

Therefore, the GVH has not only made a questionable decision on the leniency requirements in the Danube shipping cartel case, which could discourage infringers from cooperation in the future, but also seems to want to limit infringers’ ability to seek legal remedies. Even though the GVH has highlighted the possibility of appealing against its decisions as an important element of legal certainty, the decision may cause leniency recipients to fear that, due to the uncertain interpretation of the relevant rules, a possible challenge to a decision made at the end of an unlawful procedure could also serve as the basis for the GVH to cancel its leniency awards. Even though neither specific statutes nor soft law prohibits disputing a GVH decision that may in fact be open to such a dispute due to procedural errors on the part of the GVH, the threat of a heavier fine may act as a disincentive for companies to exercise their fundamental rights as clients in an administrative procedure. In our opinion, it will therefore be of particular importance to see how the administrative court that is likely to rule on the case decides the issue and where it draws the – now disputed – line between the cooperation requirement and the exercise of fundamental procedural rights.

The GVH’s press release also points out that the cartel members’ lawsuit may also raise concerns in the field of public procurement if they wish to take part in a self-cleaning procedure under the Public Procurement Act in order to be exempted from the sanction of being prohibited from participating in public procurement on the grounds of their cartel membership. According to the GVH, it will be very difficult in the future for companies that, such as the participants in the shipping cartel, dispute a GVH decision based on their own leniency application to benefit from the possibility of self-cleaning. However, based on the text of the Public Procurement Act, self-cleaning is not conditional on either the admission of an infringement or a waiver of the right to appeal, but only on the infringers’ active cooperation during the GVH’s proceedings. The Public Procurement Authority’s practice of only accepting participation in a leniency or settlement procedure as “cooperation” required by the Public Procurement Act, which is supported by the GVH in self-cleaning procedures, raises concerns it itself, as this does not follow from the text of the law or international case law. The GVH’s communication also points in this – in our opinion – wrong direction.

Summary

The Competition Act and the GVH’s Leniency Notice clearly set out the conditions under which a company can benefit from leniency. However, there is no indication in either that it would constitute a breach of the duty to cooperate if a company were to file a lawsuit in order to dispute the legality of the procedure. As the lawsuit filed against the decision adopted in the shipping cartel case did not dispute the recognition or the existence of the infringement, but only the legality of the procedure, it is questionable whether the GVH’s position will be defensible before the administrative court. If the GVH’s position prevails, companies involved in leniency programmes will be more reluctant to seek legal remedy, as the GVH could consider this as a refusal to cooperate, which could also mean heavier fines for them. Ultimately, this weakens judicial control over regulatory authorities, which is the most important guarantee of legal certainty, especially in one-level administrative procedures.

Authors: dr. Márton Kocsis and Márton Tenczer

The post Fine reduction cancelled appeared first on Versenyben vagyunk - a CERHA HEMPEL versenyjogi blogja.

It’s quite an achievement that they had to expand the group only after another six months.

Boglárka Priskin joined our team on 10 November 2020. Before that she worked at the Hungarian Competition Authority for 11 years, where she first started as an investigator. She worked as a Deputy Head of Department from September 2014, and as a Head of Department from 2019. During her time at the Hungarian Competition Authority, Boglárka gained in-depth experience in the fields of competition law, consumer protection law and administrational law. In her last position at the Authority, Boglárka was in charge of a 10-member team of experts and administrative staff that supports the Competition Council, i.e. the Hungarian Competition Authority’s arbitration board. As the leader of the team, she assisted the president and members of the Council, participated in the transposition of the new ECN Plus Directive into Hungarian national legislation, and she gave numerous presentations in Hungariaan and international conferences.

She contributed to the drafting and revision of Competition Authority’s communiqués and information bulletins, worked on joint projects with the OECD and the European Commission, and participated in the coordination of numerous organisation-wide development projects and programmes. Before becoming a Deputy Head of Department in 2014, Boglárka worked as an investigator and drafted preliminary positions and second-instance decisions for the members of the arbitration board. Between 2009 and September 2012, she was an investigator within the consumer protection department, and in this position she participated in a large number of investigations concerning the financial and transportation markets. Before joining the HCA, Boglárka interned at the competition law practice of an international law firm in Brussels. While studying law at the Law School of the University of Pécs, Boglárka received an Erasmus grant and took classes in European and competition law at the University of Tilburg for one semester.

Anna Pintér became a member of our team at CERHA HEMPEL in December 2020, after graduating from the Faculty of Law of Eötvös Loránd University. She received an Erasmus Scholarship, giving her the opportunity to enrol at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands, where she continued her legal studies in English for two semesters, taking classes in competition law, international intellectual property law and data protection law.

During her university years, Anna was an enthusiastic member of a College for Advanced Studies, where she and her fellow students participated in several extra-curricular civil law classes and mastered the vocabulary of legal English. She completed her compulsory internship at an international law firm and wrote her final thesis on the topic of the liability of online intermediary service providers.

Last, but not least, Júlia Bokor joined our Competition Group in January 2021. Júlia finished her studies at the Faculty of Law and Political Sciences of Pázmány Péter Catholic University in 2020. During her years at university, competition law was her main interest, and she was a member of the university’s Competition Law Research Centre. In addition to her university studies, she worked as an intern at two international law firms. In the course of her studies, Júlia competed in contests organised under the auspices of the Scientific Student Conference and the National Scientific Student Conference.

From the autumn of 2017, she spent one year in France, where she was a student of the Université de Versailles within the Erasmus Scholarship programme. She speaks excellent English and is currently working on improving her French.

The significant expansion of our team was made possible by the increase in the number of clients and the dynamic growth in the cases we have and handle. We would like to thank our clients for their trust that gave us the opportunity to put together a team that is second to none in Hungary (even if the team is rarely together in our offices these days and its members mostly stay in touch virtually). CERHA HEMPEL’s Competition Group, with its four lawyers (our team’s fourth senior lawyer is Márton Osztheimer, who has more than 15 years of experience as an international lawyer and provides legal services to our clients both in English and German) and its two junior associates is not only the most ambitious team on the market but also one of the largest. We can proudly say that our team is unique both in terms of the combined knowledge and the individual professional experience of its members: in includes experienced international lawyers, a former corporate chief counsel and a former investigator (leader in fact) of the Competition Authority, as well as associates whose youthful energy is a valuable addition to our team. We hope we can welcome you as one of our clients one day!

Tamás Polauf & Márton Kocsis

The post CERHA HEMPEL’s Competition Group Goes from Strength to Strength appeared first on Versenyben vagyunk - a CERHA HEMPEL versenyjogi blogja.

Due to the alleged misleading B2C communications the HCA fined Alza.hu Kft. and Alza.cz a.s. for 862 million HUF (approx. 2 436 887 EUR) and obliged Alza.hu Kft. to implement a compliance program within 60 days and to operate it at least for 2 years. Besides, Alza.hu Kft. is obliged to prove the implementation of the compliance program within 90 days from the date of receiving the HCA’s decision. The undertakings have 30 days to file an appeal against the HCA’s decision to the court.

As per the HCA decision, the misleading communication’s main characteristic was, that Alza presented popular and expensive products (such as television sets, coffee machines, mobile phones, computers etc.) in its Black Friday campaigns, while actually none of these products were eligible for an 80% discount. On the other hand, only less than 1% of the entire product portfolio of Alza was available with 80% discount, mostly less well known and less popular products.

The HCA has underlined in its decision that the promise of a significant discount (such as the discounts advertised by Alza in the “Black Friday” campaigns) may affect the decision of a conscious consumer. The HCA emphasised that using the word “up to” does not mean that such a promise has to be kept for all of the products, however, the promise made must present a realistic possibility. The decision mentions a two-step assessment to be applied when deciding on whether the usage of the “up to” statement is misleading or not. According to this test, in marketing campaigns using the “up to” statement, first it must be examined, whether (i) the affected products in question, which can be obtained at a discount (in Alza’s case with 80% discount), can be considered as being representative products within the entire product range, and then, as second step, it must be checked whether (ii) the proportion of the representative products achieve at least 10% of the entire advertised product portfolio. This means that as per the HCA’s requirement, the announced (advertised) discounts have to concern to typical (and not marginal) products, and have to be “true”, valid, meaning that the proportion of the products covered by the discounts have to reach at least 10% of the advertised product range. Besides, publishing footnotes make no significant differences: disclaimers with small fonts do not alter the main message of the advertisement and therefore do not exempt the advertisers from the consumer protection law infringement.

The following aspects were taken into consideration by the HCA when determining the fine:

• The undertakings submitted ambiguous and incomplete data regarding their advertising expenditures, moreover the submissions were inconsistent, therefore the basis amount of the fine was 10% of the net turnover of the goods concerned during the period of the infringement (the general rule – according to which the basis of the fine is the marketing expenditure of the undertaking under investigation – could not be applied in this case, according to the HCA).
• The intensity of the unfair commercial practice was high, which circumstance qualified as an aggravating factor (the infringement occurred six times between January 2018 and February 2019 with a duration of two weeks each time), besides the message of the advertisement was simple and of unambiguous nature.
• As per the HCA’s standpoint the HCA’s case law regarding how to communicate discounts should be well known by all market players (see e.g. the Extreme Digital decision), which circumstance was also an aggravating factor.
• The HCA has not identified any mitigating circumstance, but the undertakings agreed to work out and implement an ex-post compliance program, and the HCA mitigated the fine with 5% rewarding this commitment. At this point we note that the HCA can refuse to accept any commitment offer voluntarily filed by the company under investigation, nevertheless can later on – besides imposing a fine in its final decision – oblige the undertaking to realize such offer. In Alza’s case the HCA decided in favour of the undertakings when mitigating the fine in exchange for the offered commitment program.

As stated by the decision, the HCA determined the amount of the fine with having regard to all the circumstances of the case, in particular, the gravity and duration of the infringement, the achieved advantage by the infringement, the market position of the undertakings, the accountability of the conduct, the cooperation during the proceedings, and the repetition and frequency of the infringement. The HCA also underlined that the gravity of the fine (record breaking amount for such an infringement outside the fin-tech sector) intends to deter future advertisers from committing similar infringements when organizing high profile campaigns.

We consider as important takeaway from the decision, that it is of utmost importance to stop all debated commercial practices just immediately after the initiation of an administrative proceeding by the HCA. Alza kept on using the disputed slogan even for three more times after the investigation began, which circumstance may have contributed to the huge fine as a result of the HCA’s investigation. Immediate correction of the commercial practice in question could have saved Alza hundreds of millions of HUF (forints).

In our opinion, future marketing campaigns – also in the e-commerce sector – must be created with more professional care provided to compliance issues, as the HCA seems to set its own priority towards consumer protection law issues. As a general rule, every undertaking must carefully assess in the future, whether the discounts used in their advertisements are actually valid and can be deemed as being typical within a larger product portfolio. For this self-assessment exercise, it is wise to use external experts who may save significant resources, as the fines of the HCA are becoming higher with each case if solid case law interpretation already exists.

Tamás Polauf, Partner                                                  Márton Kocsis, Head of Competiton law

The post Takeaways from the Alza Black Friday HCA decision appeared first on Versenyben vagyunk - a CERHA HEMPEL versenyjogi blogja.

Tamás Polauf, a partner at CEHA HEMPEL Dezső & Partners, believes that the problem is rooted in certain legal and historical issues. Since the fall of communism in the late 80s, the typical model for places of hospitality (or HoReCa units) has been that they are financed by large beverage manufacturers (typically beer companies in the case of pubs, and soft drink or coffee producers in the case of other places, such as cafés) when they first open. In practice, this model means that in exchange for a certain quantity that the pub or café owner promises to sell, the manufacturer will furnish the new place with expensive equipment (beer tap, refrigerator, espresso machine, furniture, glasses, etc.) that a start-up company would not necessarily be able to buy on its own. The reluctance of banks to provide loans to pub owners out of fear that recovery might be uncertain and out fear of being associated with an industry of dubious reputation is generally thought to be one of the reasons why this model has developed. “At the beginning, the model seemed to have only positives”, says Mr Polauf “because pubs, cafés and restaurants had financing to start their operations, while beverage manufacturers acquired markets.” By the end of the 1990s, however, small beer manufacturers that had been doing quite well previously were gradually squeezed out of pubs by large competitors. The “support contracts” also became increasingly onerous, and initial quantity requirements were replaced by contracts that imposed full exclusivity (“one pub, one tap”).

“Such exclusive contracts can violate Hungarian and Community legislation”, points out Márton Kocsis, the leader of the competition practice at CERHA HEMPEL Dezső & Partners. There is no issue as long as a fairly small competitor (competition law allows the application of certain restrictive provisions under a market share of 30%) uses such requirements alone, because the related benefits (new businesses can enter the market, consumers will have a better experience) can outweigh the restrictions on competition. The problems start when everybody on the market imposes such requirements on pub, café and restaurant owners, who obviously have a weaker bargaining position. According to the latest investigation by Hungarian Competition Authority (HCA) of the beer market, the three large breweries (Dreher, which is currently in Japanese ownership; Soproni, a subsidiary of the Dutch Heineken, and Borsodi, which is in American ownership), and Carlsberg, the largest importer, held about 85% to 95% percent of the Hungarian HoReCa market. The HCA and Hungarian-owned small breweries are concerned that pubs, cafés and restaurants with such contracts are taken out of competition, and consumers suffer in the end: in the absence of competition, large companies become comfortable and start raising prices or cutting costs on innovation, and the quality of their products can suffer. “However, the Competition Council eventually decided that this competition issue could be managed with the breweries’ voluntary agreement to implement certain changes”, adds Mr Kocsis, who led the HCA’s investigation of the beer market. The large beer companies agreed that they would reduce the number of exclusive contracts, opening up the market and allowing smaller suppliers to have their piece of the cake. A recent HCA decision has revealed that Dreher and Borsodi has met its commitments, but Heineken is still under investigation to determine whether it acted properly in connection with its contracts with pubs. “It is also true”, adds Mr Kocsis “the HCA has never investigated the contracting practices of manufacturers of other beverages, such as soft drinks, spirits or coffee, even though it is likely that they also apply similar requirements in their contracts with pubs, cafés and restaurants.”

“The new legislation would replace the HCA’s more careful approach with more robust regulatory intervention”, points out Mr Polauf. On the basis of the bill submitted to the Parliament, the government would simply prohibit companies from concluding contracts that limit the number of beverage brands that can be sold in pubs, cafés or restaurants. Although the bill could still change and there will be many legal issues raised in connection with it (e.g. what qualifies as a “small operation brewery”; who will have the authority and, more importantly, the resources to check these contracts; or what happens if a pub sells the products of small breweries but customers do not buy enough to meet the 20% sales quota; etc.) but it is clear already that the regulations will strongly interfere in the parties’ freedom of contract.

CERHA HEMPEL’s competition experts warn that the regulation will probably be tested in various courts as it appears to primarily infringe the interests of international corporations, which have sufficient resources to pursue that route. It is probable that large manufacturers (and not necessarily just breweries; the regulation will also have a major impact on soft drink producers whose branded sunshades and glasses are common sights is pubs, bars, cafés and restaurants) will start various legal procedures and will not give up their hard-won business relationships without a fight. Mr Polauf believes that a constitutional complaint could be filed with Hungary’s Constitutional Court, but companies affected by the regulation could also seek relief directly from the European Court of Justice, which might even result in an infringement procedure against Hungary. As Mr Kocsis adds, the reason for this is that these contracts are not considered restrictive under Community competition law (there is a large body of case law in this respect), while the Hungarian legislation appears to use a competition law approach to prevent the large manufacturers’ practices. It is easy to see that where Community and national law collides, Brussels (and Luxembourg) will have the final say. Another possibility is that the relevant companies, which are mostly owned by international corporations, will charge that the EU’s fundamental freedoms are violated or that the new regulation is in fact prohibited state aid (in that it seems to favour locally-owned small companies).

On the other hand, it is obviously also possible that some form of amicable solution is reached, and probably this would serve the interests of the relevant companies the best. In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, it would be important if, besides regulations designed to intensify competition, the SMEs that operate pubs, bars, cafés and restaurants would also receive some support, whereas the loss of what has so far been secure revenue from manufacturers would have the opposite effect. The legal experts warn that the regulation in question will probably raise many other legal questions that will have to be answered at some point in the future.

Tamás Polauf, Partner                                                  Márton Kocsis, Head of Competiton law

The post Beer Wars – Competition, regulation and consumer welfare, or who pays the last round in the pub? appeared first on Versenyben vagyunk - a CERHA HEMPEL versenyjogi blogja.

Consumer protection in focus

Do you still remember the news around Christmas-time last year? Those who are familiar with the work of the competition authority were not surprised, but newspaper readers less informed about the GVH were quite surprised: record fine on Facebook for claiming its services being free of charge, more than a billion forints fine (over EUR 3 M)  on Vodafone (according to the GVH, they do not have the largest 4G network in Europe), a fine on Telenor exceeding the above, since the device marketed for HUF 0 was not free after all? So what do these cases have in common? None of the fines were issued by the Authority for classic competition infringements, cartels or abuse of a dominant position, but rather for violation of consumer protection rules. “There is currently a pretty strong focus on consumer protection law in Europe” – explained Márton Kocsis, the Head of Competition and Compliance at CERHA HEMPEL Dezső and Partners Law Firm. The expert reminded that the Commission had already announced its “New Deal for Consumers” policy in 2018, and the leaders of the Commission have repeatedly stated that, currently, fines intended to sanction consumer protection infringements do not have sufficient deterrent effect on large corporations. As a result of this policy, the national authorities have taken consumer protection more and more seriously, imposing ever-increasing fines on businesses that mislead consumers, breaching EU consumer protection regulation. The shift of focus in consumer protection has also led to a change in the usual ‘clientele’ of public authorities (instead of magic doctors curing cancer, products that promise immediate weight loss, investment advisers promising revenue above the usual financial tools, etc.): multinational companies working with millions of euros as advertising expenditures and operating extensive compliance systems are more and more likely to become a target. At the same time, the classical antitrust activities of competition authorities are declining. Well, not because of the softening of their attitude, but rather because of rising awareness as a consequence of the deterrent fines: with the development of technology, on one hand, large companies can hide the traces of serious competition law infringements much more effectively, and on the other hand, they can prevent them from even happening at all, by operating extensive awareness-raising trainings and compliance programmes.

But what did Booking.com do?

According to the press release of GVH – at the time of writing this article, the decision is not yet available on the Authority’s website – Booking.com has violated the provisions of the act prohibiting unfair commercial practices and misled its consumers with the following conducts:

• Cancellation free of charge: the promise of something being free of charge is taken more and more seriously by the GVH, Facebook and Telenor have also received gigantic fines from the authority for claiming their services being free. In contrast we had to be payed for these services either with our data or the price tag of being free was included in the fee of other services. In the case of the online accommodation agent, the authority challenged the fact that consumers had to pay higher prices for the accommodation with free cancellations than for the same accommodation without cancellation, so the price of free cancellation was eventually included in the accommodation fee. Márton Kocsis emphasized that asking for money for free cancellation does not constitute a per se infringement: in case of credible and clear communication to the consumers, it may be permissible, it is not in itself prohibited by consumer protection rules. The lawyer expert believes that in the future, in similar cases, it would be more practical – and presumably less risky – to indicate the fee for cancellation (insurance, refund, etc.) separately, so that the consumers can make a more informed decision about how much cancellation is worth to them.
• Urging consumers: All readers might recall the fairly disturbing phenomenon when on certain websites warning messages start to pop up during shopping: “hurry up, last piece!” “40 other people are currently looking at this product, decide quickly!”. Well, according to the GVH, the similar practice of Booking.com qualifies as unfair, as it forces the consumer to make a decision that she/he might not have taken without pressing. It is unprecedented – warns the expert of CERHA HEMPEL – that the GVH fines a multinational enterprise for so-called ‘aggressive commercial practice’. “Aggressive commercial practices are prohibited because they tell real information – so the 40 consumers might be real people, who are looking at the same hotel room at the same time – to the consumer in a way that influences the transactional decision and thus trick the consumer to buy something, which she/he may does not need. Until now, this has been common in the case of teleshops and other companies with a well-known dubious reputation, now the GVH makes large companies accountable for this as well” – said Márton Kocsis.
• Paying with SZÉP-card: According to the GVH, Booking.com did not provide proper information about the cases in which it is possible to pay with a SZÉP-card (a cafeteria element popular in Hungary) at certain accommodations, thus violating the requirement of professional diligence required by law.

Towards a new world?

So, what follows from the GVH’s extremely strict approach towards Booking.com and the previously fined large companies? According to the expert of CERHA HEMPEL, companies that have committed serious competition law infringements should not be at ease either: European competition authorities continue to consider cartels to be the most serious infringements of competition law. At the same time, it seems that consumer protection is gaining ground even at the expense of classical competition law. It is not a coincidence that the GVH first task was to issue a notice about the importance of informing consumers properly, right after the outbreak of the coronavirus epidemic. It is also an important development that the role of behavioural economics becomes more important with the spread of new technologies in consumer protection procedures: both public authorities and businesses can use the help of economic experts to prove the impact of a marketing message on consumer decision-making. Moreover, in the future, it will be even more important for a large company intending to be compliant, to pay special attention and allocate resources to compliance activities. Well-functioning compliance programmes may be able to prevent the publication of potentially misleading content even before the infringement has taken place. In addition, the preliminary compliance efforts might be counted as a fine mitigating circumstance in front of the GVH, therefore it may be worthwhile to use the help of an external consultant or specialist when developing these programmes – added Márton Kocsis.

Dr. Márton Kocsis 

Head of Competiton law 

The post Competition law: the endgame or rather the age of consumer protection? appeared first on Versenyben vagyunk - a CERHA HEMPEL versenyjogi blogja.

The event, which was combined with a half day long competition law conference, was attended by over 70 Hungarian and foreign professionals. The co-host of the event was CHSH Dezső & Partners who’s co-managing partner, Tamás Polauf was also the editor in chief of the book.

After the opening remarks of CHSH and Wolters Kluwer, Dr. Gábor Fejes vice-chair of the Hungarian Competition Law Association and Dr. Pál Szilágyi, assistant professor of Pázmány Péter Catholic University introduced the book to the public.

After the appraisal of the book, and interesting and smart panel discussion took place, on the perspectives of private enforcement in Hungary. The participants of the panel discussion were Dr. Mónika Csöndes, senior lecturer and special advisor to the Curia, Dániel Gelencsér, assistant lecturer of Pázmány Péter Catholic University and also special advisor to the Curia, as well as András Fenyőházi (litigation expert) and Márton Kocsis (competition law expert) from CHSH Dezső and Partners, both senior attorneys. The panel discussed, among others, the presumptions introduced by the Damages Directive, the questions of follow on and stand alone actions, parental liability, and the difficulties of obtaining evidence during private antitrust litigation. The later issues is even more important in Hungary as the new regulation on Civil Procedures was entered into force on the 1^st of January, 2018.

Dr. András Tóth, the vice-president of the Hungarian Competition Authority and chairmen of department at Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church, was then gave a lecture on the role of the Hungarian Competition Authority in private antitrust litigation. The vice-president stressed in his lecture, that in his view, private enforcement claims undermines the effectiveness of the leniency regime of the European Commission. For this reason, the Hungarian Competition Authority intends to play a conservative role during the discovery procedures, namely to narrowly define the documents from its own file, the parties to the litigation may get access to during discovery.

Simone Kohnz, the lead expert at the economic advisory firm E.CA E.CA Economics in Berlin, rövid briefly summarized the role of the economic experts in private enforcement cases. Simone in her lecture touched all the relevant questions which are analysed in more detail in the chapter written by the German expert in the book. She, in a very comprehensive way, presented on of the most important issues of private enforcement actions, which is to econometrically calculate the total amount of damages suffered in connection to a competition law infringement. In order to properly assess the total amount of damage, the parties will need well prepared economic experts and fine-tuned econometric models.

After Simone’s most interesting lecture, another, yet international panel discussion took place, moderated by Dr. András Osztovits, chief justice of the Curia (the Supreme Court of Hungary). The panel’s main topic was the foreign experiences in private enforcement litigation. The panel members were Wieke van Eekhout, from Van Doorne Amsterdam, Jason Woodland, partner at Peters&Peters from London and Bernhard Kofler-Senoner, the competition law partner at CHSH Vienna. The foreign experts touched the issue of class actions, limitation in cross border cases, parental liability and discovery. The event was closed after a lively academic debate by the participants.

The post A Great Success: CHSH Dezső & Partners and publisher Wolters Kluwer hosted a joint book launching event appeared first on Versenyben vagyunk - a CERHA HEMPEL versenyjogi blogja.

The book is published by Wolters Kluwer, and its editor-in-chief is Tamás Polauf, who is one of the partners in CHSH Dezső & Partners, the winner of Wolters Kluwer’s 2017 Antitrust Team of the Year Award. The contributing authors are prominent Hungarian and international experts of antitrust and civil law, including Márton Kocsis, the leading antitrust expert of CHSH’s Antitrust Law Group.

The book is intended serve as guidance to the members of a wider audience who apply the law (judges, lawyers and other experts) and to litigants by giving an overview of private antitrust litigation and by offering a practical approach to the most important aspects of this issue. This practical approach is also reflected in the chapters written by the international authors, who describe the practices of jurisdictions where private antitrust litigation is a more widely used form of legal recourse. The international authors of the book are practicing lawyers and partners of some of Europe’s leading law firms, including Simone Kohnz from Berlin, Sarah Beeston from Amsterdam and Jason Woodland from London.

The editors of the book wish to showcase the book in a brief conference where the authors will have the opportunity to exchange ideas with distinguished antitrust law experts and other members of the target audience (corporate leaders and corporate lawyers).

Attendance is free but subject to registration. You can register at the following address: http://landing.wolterskluwer.hu/versenyjogi_karteritesi_perek_konyvbemutato by 9 April. You can also find the detailed programme of the event on the same page.

The presentation will be held in Ceremonial Hall (Díszterem) of Pázmány Péter Catholic University Law School (1088 Budapest, Szentkirályi u. 28-30.) between 9 am and 1 pm on 11 April 2018.

The post Presentation of the new book: Antitrust damages actions appeared first on Versenyben vagyunk - a CERHA HEMPEL versenyjogi blogja.

How can a company achieve a reduction in fines?

1. With a settlement agreement that includes an admission of the infringement and a waiver of the right to seek legal recourse. This is what happened in the case of Duna House and Otthon Centrum, two online property agencies that coordinated their pricing policies and exchanged confidential business information in a cross-sales cooperation. The two companies concluded a settlement agreement with the HCA, and their fines were reduced by 30%.

2. By paying compensation for the damage caused, as Vodafone did when it (among other things) offered to pay compensation to its customers and managed to reduce the fine imposed on it to HUF 200 million, or by 50% (although it was a consumer protection case).

3. By developing a compliance programme, as Pharma Nord, Lidl, or Media Markt did (again, in consumer protection cases). A compliance programme that is put in place before an antitrust procedure is launched has even greater significance. On the other hand, the existence of a compliance programme in itself is not sufficient to secure the reduction of a fine. In order to receive a reduction, the company must

a) prove that it has carried out adequate compliance efforts;

b) stop the infringing practice as soon as it is discovered;

c) be able to provide objective and credible evidence that that infringing practice was stopped as a result a compliance programme that was instituted by the company voluntarily or at the HCA’s instruction in a previous procedure.

Another condition that must be met in order for the existence of a compliance programme to qualify as a mitigating factor is that high-ranking corporate officers must not participate in the infringement.

Therefore, companies that partially or wholly remedy that negative consequences of their infringement can count on considerable fine reductions. Compensation paid to consumers is a preferred solution, because the full amount of such compensation can be deducted from the fine imposed by the HCA. Even partial compensation can result in the reduction of the fine. Such reductions can be combined with settlement agreements and leniency arrangements to achieve even greater reductions.

It is clear that the HCA wishes to use fine reductions to encourage companies to compensate consumers for the wrongs they have done and to operate corporate compliance programmes.

For example, the fine can be completely cancelled in a consumer protection case if the infringing company requested a competition law expert before launching an ad campaign, because this will be seen as evidence that the company made a voluntary effort to comply with the law.

In antitrust cases, the fine reduction can be in the range of 7% to 10%, subject to whether the company stops the infringement that is discovered with the help of a corporate compliance programme, or whether it provides evidence to the HCA in a potential later procedure. Once the procedure starts, the HCA encourages companies to implement compliance programmes by offering reductions between 5% and 20%, subject to the nature of the case. A company that admits wrongdoing and provides evidence for it can receive reductions as high as 20% to 30%.

It is important to note that small and medium enterprises (SMEs) can be given a warning instead of a fine when they commit their first infringement and there is good cause to believe that the warning will be sufficient to deter them from future infringements. A warning is a tool that allows companies to avoid fines. The HCA used this sanction against a soap distributor and several travel agencies in the past.

In recent years, the HCA has placed greater emphasis on a business-friendly approach and on encouraging cooperation, and therefore it offers several different ways of cooperation for companies that are subject to its investigations. The authority has taken several steps, such as the application of new sanctions like the introduction of warnings for SMEs or the revision of its communique on fines, which can be more efficient in ensuring greater compliance and the elimination of certain bad practices from the market.

The HCA greatly relied on the opinions of Hungarian and international experts in the drafting of its communiques: in various public consultations, companies, law firms (including CHSH) and trade organisations had the opportunity to express their positions, which were then taken into account by the HCA when it formulated the communiques.

All this shows that relying on the advice of antitrust experts in a HCA procedure has become even more important than it was in the past. A team of experts who are familiar with the HCA’s prior practices and its new approach can save up to 50% for a company if they inform it about the possible ways of cooperating with the HCA.

Márton Kocsis, Lead competition law expert

The post Cooperation with the Hungarian Competition Authority – Worth more now than ever before? appeared first on Versenyben vagyunk - a CERHA HEMPEL versenyjogi blogja.