Booking.com Decision
Introduction
The Competition Board (“Board”) concluded its investigation with regard to the booking services provided by Booking.com B.V. (“Booking.com”) and by Bookingdotcom Destek Hizmetleri Limited Liability Company, operating as the Turkish representative of Booking.com. During its investigation, the Board has evaluated whether Articles 4 and 6 of Act No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Competition Act”) were violated by Booking.com’s “best price guarantee” practices. As a result of the investigation, the Board decided that Booking.com violated Article 4 of the Competition Act and, therefore, an administrative fine of 2,543.992.85 TL[1] should be imposed on the undertaking concerned in accordance with Article 16 of the same Act.[2] The reasoned decision has not yet been published.
Grounds for the Administrative Monetary Fine
The Board decided that Booking.com’s agreements with accommodation facilities are within the scope of Article 4 of the Competition Act, since the agreements include articles regarding price parity and best price guarantees. Article 4 reads as “Agreements and concerted practices between undertakings, and decisions and practices of associations of undertakings that have as their object or effect or likely effect the prevention, distortion or restriction of competition directly or indirectly in a particular market for goods or services are illegal and prohibited.”
Booking.com could not benefit from the block exemption defined in Block Exemption Communique numbered 2002/2[3] due to the fact that its’ market share exceeds the 40% amount in the relevant market in which it provides services, and that are the subject of the vertical agreement. Furthermore, Booking.com could not benefit from the individual exemption, since it did not fulfill the conditions determined in Article 5 of the Competition Act. Therefore, upon its evaluation, the Board decided that Booking.com has violated Article 4 of the Competition Act, and imposed an administrative fine. It is also worth mentioning that the foreign authorities generally choose not to impose administrative fines in similar cases. Separately, Bookingdotcom Destek Hizmetleri Limited Liability Company did not receive an administrative monetary penalty as it has no decisive influence on the implementations that are subject to the investigation.
MFN Clauses
The recent activities of the antitrust authorities in the United States, the EU and Turkey indicate that they have a growing interest in the “most favored nation clause,” “most favored customer clause,” and “price parity clause” implementations (“MFN”).
By virtue of an MFN clause, the seller in principle commits not to offer more favorable prices to other customers.[4] Therefore, the buyer benefiting from the MFN clause guarantees that the seller offers the favorable prices or sales conditions that it provides to other customers, as well as to itself. The common application of the MFN clause is as follows: The seller undertakes that if it offers more favorable conditions to a buyer other than the one benefiting from the MFN clause, it will also offer the favorable conditions to the MFN customer[5]. In the conventional trade agreements, the MFN clauses are typically formed with regard to the price commitments. However, they may also relate to other terms and conditions of the agreements.
The MFN clauses are commonly found in a wide range of commercial agreements from long- term industrial supply to distribution arrangements. On the other hand, recently the antitrust authorities in the US, European Union and Turkey (as in the Booking.com and Yemek Sepeti Elektronik İletişim Tanıtım Pazarlama Gıda San. ve Tic. A.Ş.[6] (“Yemek Sepeti”) decisions) are interested in the MFN clauses in the platform agreements. Examples for these types of applications are as follows: MFNs in online travel agency sites, price comparison sites, and online marketplaces where the site operators wish to ensure that they can offer the lowest price on the market. In platform agreements, the MFN right is granted to the platform provider, and the customers that purchase goods or services from the platform are the indirect beneficiaries of the MFN clause. The platform provider’s interest is to increase its sales made through the platform (or increase the usage of the platform). Therefore, it obtains commission or advertisement income. The MFN clause here guaranties that the platform provider offers the lowest price to the customers with regard to the seller’s sale or services[7]. Accordingly, in our case, Booking.com is the platform provider, and the accommodation facilities (hotels) are the sellers.
The Competitive Impact of the MFN clauses
To date, the MFN clauses have not been evaluated as per se infringements. Indeed, the assessment of the competitive impact of MFN clauses is highly fact-specific, and largely depends on the party’s market positions, the characteristics of the market, and the manner in which the MFN clause is implemented. Accordingly, there are conflicting opinions with regard to the competitive impacts of the MFN clauses in the doctrine. It can be said that in line with almost all vertical restraints, the MFN clauses have both pro-competitive and anti-competitive effects.[8] The competitive effects may also vary depending on the fact that the MFN clause is formed as a narrow or wide MFN clause.
The pro-competitive effects of an MFN clause are as follows: (i) provides investment incentives to the buyer, (ii) reduces transaction costs, (iii) avoids the buyer to delay its purchase; therefore, provides the demand certainty in the market, (iv) as a consequence of the demand certainty, the seller is facilitated in making efficient production and capacity decisions and (v) avoids the free rider problems[9].
The anti-competitive effects of a MFN clause are as follows: (i) facilitates coordination, (ii) reduces price competition and results price stability, (iii) exclusion: raising rivals’ and entrants’ costs and (iv) increasing the seller’s bargaining power[10].
Booking.com Decision and MFN
As mentioned above, the reasoned decision has not yet been published. On the other hand, the short form decision points out two facts. Firstly, the Board determined the grounds of the infringement as Article 4 of the Competition Act instead of Article 6 of the same Act. The various competition authorities in the world generally evaluated the MFN clauses in the scope of the articles corresponding to Article 4 of the Competition Act (for instance, Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning the European Union). On the other hand, there is no obstacle for a MFN clause to be evaluated in the scope of Article 6. Indeed, we have recently seen the application of Article 6 in the Yemek Sepeti decision in which the Board imposed an administrative monetary fine on Yemek Sepeti, ordered it to end any type of MFC practices that prevent competing platforms to offer better or different conditions, and revise its agreements in such scope. The Board may have various reasons for not applying Article 6 in the Booking.com case, and the reasoned decision will certainly light the way.
Secondly, the Booking.com decision will be an important decision in terms of evaluating the competitive effects of the MFN clauses in the platform markets. The decision found that the MFN clauses in the Booking.com agreements are anti-competitive. At first instance, the MFN clauses may seem to be a positive arrangement for the consumers. This is because when the consumer visits Booking.com, hotels rooms are easily reserved with the lowest price guarantee. On the other hand, looking at the bigger picture, there may be different conclusions and, within that context, there are a number of facts that should be considered. For instance, whether these “lowest” prices that are applied in a platform that have the high market share, as consequence a floor price, therefore, result in the accommodation facilities being unwilling to offer lower prices to customers. If this is so, the MFN clauses may reason market entry obstacles. The Board’s grounds for this evaluation will be understood through the reasoned decision. Beyond any doubt, the reasoned decision will be a useful guide for the evaluation of MFN clauses in platform markets.
[1] Please see Regulation on Fines To Apply in Cases Of Agreements, Concerted Practices and Decisions Limiting Competition, and Abuse Of Dominant Position, Article 5 (1) (b), 5 (2) (a) and 5 (3) (a).
[2] Please see:
http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/en-US/News/Investigation-conducted-on-Bookingcom-BV-ve-Bookingdotcom-Destek-Hizmetleri-Limited-Sirketi-concluded (Access date: 17.01.2017).
[3] Block Exemption Communiqué on Vertical Agreements, Amended by the Competition Board Communiqué, No. 2003/3 and 2007/2, Numbered 2002/2.
[4] Vandenborre I., Frese, M. J, “Most Favored Nation Clauses Revisited”, European Competition Law Review, 2014, No:12, p. 558-593.
[5] Baker, Jonathan B. and Chevalier, Judith A., "The Competitive Consequences of Most-Favored-Nation Provisions" (2013), Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals, Vol 277.
[6] Please see:
http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT%2f1%2fDocuments%2fG%C3%BCncel%2fsorusturmalar%2fyemek+sepeti.pdf (Access date: 20.01.2017)
[7] Vandenborre I., Frese, M. J, “Most Favored Nation Clauses Revisited”, European Competition Law Review, 2014, No:12, p. 558-593.
[8] Vandenborre I., Frese, M. J, p. 588.
[9] Baker, Jonathan B. and Chevalier, Judith A., p. 22-24.; Vandenborre I., Frese, M. J, p. 589.
[10] Baker, Jonathan B. and Chevalier, Judith A., p. 22-24.
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
At the meeting of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”) held on 16 December 2022, the FIFA Council approved the FIFA Football Agents Regulations (“FFAR”). In the FFAR, various amendments have been made, such as the introduction of a maximum service fee limit that football agents are...
Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) is still considered a hardcore restriction under the recently revised Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER), which means that it cannot benefit from a statutory exemption under Article 101(1) TFEU, unlike certain other types of vertical agreements. However, it has been debated...
In competition law, it is important to accurately determine the concept of undertaking, especially in terms of mergers and acquisitions. Therefore, the concept of economic entity aims to reveal the economic units covered by the undertakings. The relationship between the concept of economic entity and family ties comes...
In these days when the Competition Board (“Board”) frequently imposes administrative fines for preventing on-site inspections and both the Competition Authority (“Authority”) and undertakings take legal and technical measures regarding on-site inspections, a striking development has occurred. In its decision...
Online advertising has become an important source for businesses for promoting products and services and meeting consumers, as a result of the rapid development of information technologies and increase in the use of internet. Delivering targeted messages to consumers at the right time through the digital...
Selective distribution systems refer to a type of distribution system in which suppliers commit to selling the contracted goods or services directly or indirectly to distributors selected based on specified criteria, while the distributors commit not to sell the said goods or services to unauthorized...
Fast-moving consumer goods is undoubtedly one of the sectors that the Competition Authority has been working most intensively since the COVID 19 pandemic. Among the most important developments of this period was the Sector Inquiry initiated on Fast Moving Consumer Goods (“FMCG”) Retailing...
In the decision of the Constitutional Court ("Constitutional Court" or "Court") dated 09.11.2022, numbered 2020/67 E. 2022/139 K. (the "Decision"), the annulment of certain articles of the Law Amending the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 4054 ("Law No. 7246") was requested...
In Turkish competition law, certain types of mergers and acquisitions are subject to Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) approval in order to gain legal validity. Pursuant to Article 7 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”), the Board is competent to define mergers and acquisitions...
Recently, the Competition Board (the Board) had imposed administrative fines on banks and financial institutions for failing to respond to the request for information within the scope of a preliminary investigation.[i] The request for information that lays the groundwork for the administrative fine imposed by...
Amazon, a world-famous company, is an e-commerce company that operates the world’s largest online shopping platform. In the backstage, Amazon is a data-driven company whose retail decisions are mostly driven by automated systems, fueled by the relevant market data. That being said, Amazon has a dual...
The right to make on-site inspections is one of the Competition Board’s (“Board”) most important tools for revealing whether Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”) has been violated. The effective use of this authority is quite important in terms of obtaining fruitful results from...
“Harese” is an interesting Arabic word. There is a thorn that camels love very much in the desert. The camel eats the thorn with great greed. So much so that, its mouth bleeds as it eats, but it doesn't stop eating. The taste of the thorn is mixed with the salty taste of its own blood. This mixed taste drives the camel...
Turkey’s leading pay television service provider, Krea İçerik Hizmetleri ve Prodüksiyon A.Ş. (“Digiturk”), is frequently the subject of complaints made to the Competition Authority (“Authority”). In fact, the Competition Board (“Board”) issues a new decision about Digiturk almost every year. In these decisions...
The French Competition Authority (Autorité de la Concurrence), within the scope of the competition law proceeding initiated upon the complaint of Criteo SA (“Criteo”), accepted the commitments proposed by Meta Platforms Inc., Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd., and Facebook France...
While the scope of Competition Board’s (“Board”) power to conduct on-site inspections has increased with the introduction of Guidelines on Examination of Digital Data during On-site Inspections (“Guidelines”), nowadays the amount of monetary fines imposed on undertakings continue to...
The hub and spoke cartel, which is a relatively new type of violation in terms of Turkish competition law, is defined as the indirect exchange of information between two independent undertakings which are horizontal competitors on the supplier or retailer level, through another undertaking...
The settlement mechanism has only recently been introduced to Turkish competition law practice. It entered into force with the amendment made to the Law on the Protection of Competition (“Law”) numbered 4054 on 16.06.2020, and has been in effect for less than two years. In this relatively...
Due to their increasing share in the economy and rapid growth rate, e-marketplace platforms have come under the increasing scrutiny of the Turkish Competition Authority (“Authority”) as well as many competition authorities around the world...
Pursuant to the Amendment Communiqué Concerning the Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring the Competition Board’s Approval (“Amending Communiqué”) published in the Official Gazette dated March 4th, 2022 and numbered 31768, certain amendments have been introduced...
The Competition Board (“Board”) has recently published a reasoned decision in which it evaluated BSH Ev Aletleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.’s (“BSH”) request for negative clearance or exemption with regard to its practice of prohibiting authorized dealers from making sales through online marketplaces...
Shahmaran, a Mesopotamian myth, is believed to take place in Tarsus. According to the myth, the shah of snakes is the immortal and omniscient "Shahmaran." Shahmaran is described as a beautiful woman living in her cave with her snakes...
During the COVID-19 pandemic, competitive concerns about the pricing behavior of chain markets, manufacturers, and wholesalers engaged in the retail trade of food and cleaning supplies led to an investigation by...
When the past decisions and the recent decisions of the Competition Board (“Board”) are examined, a significant increase can be observed in the number of decisions where the Board found hindrance or obstruction of on-site inspections. This situation shows that...
The European Commission began investigating the collusive behavior of Credit Suisse, UBS, Barclays, RBS, and HSBC in the Foreign Exchange (forex) spot trading market in 2019. With the recent press release dated 02.12.2021, the Commission announced that the case is now closed...
Digitalization, in particular, necessitates the rewriting of competition law rules. Competition law is at the center all questions regarding e-commerce and digital platforms. The aforementioned platforms, which have become prominent due to innovations in...