Competition Board's Investigations in Cosmetics Industry
Introduction
It is observed that the Competition Authority (“Authority”) has recently scrutinized various industries such as fast-moving consumer goods, labor market, pharmaceuticals, and cement. When the reasoned decisions of the Competition Board (“Board”) published in October are examined, it can be seen that the Authority conducted in-depth investigations regarding the determination of resale prices in the cosmetics industry, and some undertakings in the relevant cases decided to settle and concluded the cases.
These decisions are provided in detail below:
Colastin Sağlık Ürünleri A.Ş. (“Colastin”)
According to the Board's decision dated 03.11.2022 and numbered 22-50/739-M, on-site inspections were conducted in undertakings operating in the cosmetics and personal care industry, namely MOT Grup Bilişim Ltd. Şti. (“Saçhane”), Ucuzavar Bilgi Teknoloji Turizm Gıda Pazarlama Ltd. Şti. (“Ucuzavar”), Likya Farma Emlak Gıda Kozmetik İthalat İhracat Turizm ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. (“Farma Ucuz”), Gratis İç ve Dış Ticaret AŞ’de (“Gratis”), A.S. Watson Güzellik ve Bakım Ürünleri Ticaret AŞ (“Watsons”), Dirk Rossmann Mağazacılık Ticaret Ltd.Şti. (“Rossmann”), Eve Mağazacılık AŞ (“Eve”) and Günerler Kozmetik ve Tekstil Tic. Ltd. Şti.de (“Günerler”), and an investigation was initiated against various undertakings to determine whether they have violated Law No 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”).
Colastin purchases, sells, imports and exports all kinds of food supplements and protein products, wholesales, imports and exports ready-made homogenized food and dietetic food products, sports foods and immunity-boosting foods, and produces, sells and distributes Colastin branded Collagen, Elastin and Lozenge products. Therefore, the Board stated that the relevant product market could be defined as the “food supplement products” market, but refrained from making a definitive definition of the relevant product market, stating that the market definition would not change the results of the examination.
In the analysis carried out by the Board, it was determined that Colastin Sales Manager sent a WhatsApp correspondence to Farmaucuz’s General Manager, stating that Colastin followed up on the prices of the reseller Farmaucuz's marketplace and website sales and that if Farmaucuz sold products at a price lower than the determined price, it contacted the seller and revised its prices.
In addition, it was understood from the message sent via WhatsApp by the Turkey Sales Manager of Colastin that prices in case other resellers were also monitored and Colastin could intervene if the resellers would sell products at a price lower than the determined price. Colastin would also send out warning messages to the resellers and threaten them that if the resale prices are found to be different from the price lists conveyed by Colastin their lawyers would terminate the commercial relationship by utilizing the trademark right. In this context, it was concluded that Colastin’s behavior constituted a violation in accordance with Article 4 of Law No. 4054. In this context, Colastin requested settlement and the Board decided to conclude the investigation for Colastin by imposing an administrative fine on the undertaking with a 25% settlement discount.
Kozmoklinik Kozmetik A.Ş. (“Kozmoklinik”)
Since Kozmoklinik, which was scrutinized within the scope of the same investigation, operates in the field of marketing, sales, and distribution of cosmetics and personal care products, the relevant product market was determined as “cosmetics and personal care products” for the specific case.
A single finding was included in the reasoned decision; however, the relevant document was an e-mail sent by Kozmoklinik to resellers with whom Kozmoklinik has already established or is likely to establish a working relationship, in which it stated that if resellers set their sales prices at a within a certain frame along the lines of the recommended prices determined by Kozmoklinik, due to the profitability resulting from the sale the reseller would be entitled to the entire year-end premium, and if the recommended prices are not followed, a deduction will be made from the year-end premium earned due to the lack of profitability expected from the sale. In accordance with the relevant correspondence, the Board determined that certain price deviations from the resale price could be ignored, but in case of further deviations, a pressure and incentive system was established by deducting the year-end premium, which would further reinforce the resale price maintenance behavior of Kozmoklinik. In this context, Kozmoklinik requested settlement and similarly, it was decided to conclude the investigation for Kozmoklinik by imposing an administrative fine with a 25% settlement discount for Kozmoklinik.
Farmasi Enternasyonel A.Ş. (“Farmasi”)
In the relevant decision, as a result of telephone conversations with the complainant and examination of the prices of sellers in online marketplaces; Avon Kozmetik Ürünleri Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (“Avon”), L’Oreal Türkiye Kozmetik San. and Tic. AŞ (“Loreal”), NAOS İstanbul Kozmetik San. and Tic. Ltd. Ltd. (“Naos”), Pierre Fabre Dermo Kozmetik Ltd. Ltd. (“Pierre Fabre”), Kosan Kozmetik Pazarlama ve Tic. AŞ (“Flormar”), Yöntem Profesyonel Kozmetik Ürün. San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. (“Yöntem”) and Farmasi were suspected of having violated Law No. 4054 by restricting their resellers’ internet sales and/or interfering with the resale price. These six enterprises were included in the review and it was decided to conduct a preliminary investigation against them, and an investigation was eventually initiated on Farmasi.
Within the scope of the investigation regarding Farmasi, which imports, exports, domestically purchases and sells all kinds of personal care and cosmetic products on a retail and/or wholesale level, and markets them directly or door-to-door, the relevant product market has been determined as “cosmetic and personal care products”.
Within the scope of the investigation, Farmasi was requested to provide information about the effective dates and samples of the Farmasi Entrepreneur Agreement, Entrepreneur Booklet and similar annexes, amendments made to the provisions and their dates. In the submitted response letter, it was stated that the Farmasi Entrepreneur Agreement and Entrepreneur Booklet came into force in 2011, some amendments were made to its articles over time, and the versions of the relevant contract and booklet used so far were presented. However, although the undertaking stated that the Entrepreneur Booklet was up-to-date, it was determined by the case handlers assigned to the file that a provision referred to in the documents obtained during the on-site examination and considered to be contrary to competition law was not included in the said Entrepreneur Booklet. It has been determined that the provision in question regulates that resellers can only sell at catalog prices on websites and applications permitted by Farmasi and that if resellers violate this provision, various sanctions such as termination of their page within Farmasi and termination of their membership may be imposed on the seller.
In addition, from the evidence obtained, it was observed that Farmasi warned a reseller who sold products at prices lower than the catalog prices and requested that the prices be increased to the same level as the catalog prices and that if the prices were not increased within the specified period, the relevant seller’s Farmasi entrepreneur page would be terminated. Similarly, in other documents, it is stated that Farmasi’s authorized sellers do not allow the sale of products on the online platform called Trendyol, and if it is determined that they sell products below a certain price on the relevant platform, criminal sanctions will be imposed on the sellers in question, the relevant sellers will be prevented from entering the entrepreneur page in Farmasi and their premiums will not be paid. In addition, in such cases, Farmasi required product prices to be corrected and reported to Farmasi, and clarification on the issue is requested from authorized sellers. In this context, it has been determined that some entrepreneurs corrected their prices following Farmasi’s warning.
Accordingly, Farmasi’s actions were determined to be resale price determination, and the case was concluded for Farmasi with a reduced administrative fine by 25% within the framework of the settlement text submitted upon Farmasi’s request for settlement.
In addition, during the investigation process, it was determined that the article referred to in the Entrepreneur Booklet was not included in the contract declared to be up-to-date by Farmasi, that another provision which was claimed to have been added by the undertaking in 2018 was actually included in 2017 and that the amounts of back sales for export purposes carried out by Farmasi in 2021 were declared differently in each document. Accordingly, it was unanimously decided to impose an administrative fine in the amount of one-thousandth of the annual gross income generated at the end of the 2021 fiscal year and determined by the Board, separately for each action.
Conclusion
Recently, it has been observed that the Authority has carried out in-depth examinations in various sectors. In this regard, it is evident that detailed examinations and investigations are carried out regarding the determination of the resale price in the cosmetics industry, and the relevant companies prefer to conclude the investigation through the settlement process. The relevant decisions also shed light on the depth and detail of the analysis of the case handlers, since it is clear that the basis of the fine regarding the false and misleading information given to Farmasi is the differences found out by the experts by comparing the information in the response letters with the documents examined on-site and Google search results.
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
The Competition Board ("Board") made an addition to its line of decisions on resale price maintenance with its decision on Sunny Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. ("Sunny") . In its decision, the Board thoroughly examined the allegations regarding Sunny's involvement in maintaining resale prices and restricting...
Hub and Spoke cartel is a type of violation that is not clearly defined and regulated under Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”). Decisional practices of foreign competition authorities, particularly the UK Competition and Markets Authority’s decisions (“CMA”), are instructive concerning...
Jules Verne says, “Everything on earth has a limited lifespan, nothing that will exist forever can be created by human hands”. Perhaps change is the only constant concept in all our lives. Despite two major world wars and countless periods of crisis, humanity has been undergoing a great change and...
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...