The Italian Competition Authority opens an antitrust investigation into an alleged cartel in the motor vehicle insurance sector

On 7 December 2016 the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) has decide to start an Article 101 TFEU investigation against 12 major insurance firms in Italy in the Case I802 (Aumentiprezzi RCA concordati). The ICA feared that the parties may have entered into an anti-competitive agreement to fix the premiums for motor vehicle insurance. Interestingly, the ICA decision was grounded on the statements made by the CEO of two insurance firms. The CEO of Unipol predicted an increase in insurance premiums after a long phase of declining prices. The CEO of Assicurazioni Generali said that the strong price competition, which was not triggered by Generali, was coming to an end. He also predicted a price increase due to the slowing down of price competition with an improvement for the profitability of the sector.
Importantly, the ICA viewed these statements as public announcements concerning the pricing competition strategies in the motor vehicle insurance sector, and more specifically about the commercial strategies of Unipol and Assicurazioni Generali. These statements might reduce the uncertainty in the future pricing policies of market operators, which is inherent to competitive markets. Relying on the end of the prices war, the parties might rise the insurance prices without the risk of losing clients. In other words, the statements of the CEO of Assicurazioni Generali and Unipol might be considered as an indicium of the parties being coordinated their pricing policies in the relevant market.

The decision in the Case I802 is a reminder that the ICA may open an antitrust investigation on the basis of what appeared to be generic public declarations made by business leaders on the market strategies of the companies they run. In that regard, it should be kept in mind that competition authorities have already considered public announcements on future pricing policies as evidence of anti-competitive agreements among insurance firms (ICA, Case I446 Compagnie aree-fuel charge; European Commission, Case AT39850, Container Shipping). 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aspen: The Italian Competition Authority fines a generic manufacturer of drugs for excessive pricing

By the decision made on 29 September 2016 in Aspen [i] , the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) has imposed a fine of more than EUR 5 million on the Aspen group (Aspen), a South African manufacturer of generic drugs. Aspen violated Article 102 TFEU by imposing excessive prices for the supply of the so-called ‘Cosmos drugs’. These drugs included Leukeran, Alkeran, Purinethol and Tioguanine, which included the active principles of chlorambucil, melphalan, mercaptopurine and tioguanine, respectively. All these drugs were used to treat cancer pathologies and included in a wider package of pharmaceutical products, whose marketing rights had been purchased by Aspen from the originator GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in 2009. Aspen had a dominant position in the relevant product markets for the commercialization of anti-cancer drugs manufactured using the active principles of alkeran, leukeran, purinethol and tioguanine. It had the only one market authorization for the sale of drugs and potential ...
Read more

Geographical allocation of turnover in aviation mergers: What the European Commission recently hold

The European Merger Control Regulation (ECMR) stipulates that only concentrations with a European dimension fall within the regulatory jurisdiction of the European Commission to review. A concentration is presumed to have such a dimension when it meets the financial threshold in Article 1 of the ECMR. To this end, it is necessary to calculate the turnover generated by the merging parties within the Community or in one or more member states. However, the geographical allocation of the turnover required by Article 1 for the purpose to establish the Commission’s jurisdiction can be a tricky issue in case of mergers between undertakings with a cross-border activity such airliners. In fact, the activities of airlines span several countries as they typically operate flights and sell tickets in many national markets. Recently, the Commission has dealt with the issue at length in the Ryanair/Aer Lingus case. It identified three possible methodologies for geographical allocation of turnover: -...
Read more

The European Commission unconditionally clears the Facebook/WhatsApp merger

By a Phase I decision the Commission unconditionally approved the Facebook $ 19 billion acquisition of WhatsApp ( Case No COMP/M.7217,Facebook/WhatsApp) . The Commission was required by the parties to review the transaction by means of a reasoned submission filed on the basis of Article 4(5) of the EU Merger Regulation. Indeed, the merger was not a concentration with EU dimension within the meaning of Article 1 EUMR falling within the Commission jurisdiction, since the EU turnover of WhatsApp in 2013 failed to met the financial thresholds in that provision. The Commission identified three relevant product markets affected by the concentration. It restrained the first relevant market, the market for consumer communication services, to the communication apps for smartphones, because WhatsApp was available only for this device. Following its approach in Microsoft/Skype (Case M.6281), upheld by the General Court in the case T-79/12, Cisco Systems and Messagenet v Commission, the Com...
Read more