The Effects of the Recent Decision by the Turkish Competition Board on Market Chains and Their Suppliers
Introduction
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 (“Investigation”) by the Turkish Competition Authority (“Authority”). The comprehensive Investigation process and the subsequent decision[1] of the Turkish Competition Board (“Board”), which had a wide repercussion on the public opinion, reveals the current competition law approach towards the retail sector.
Retail and Supply Sector
The Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (“FMCG”) retailing which is the subject of the Decision is defined as the service of selling products such as food, beverages, personal care products, cosmetics and cleaning products to end users, which have high shelf turnover rates, are stocked for a short time and are constantly consumed. In order to categorize the large number of actors operating in FMCG retailing, a distinction is generally made between the traditional channel (grocery stores, gas stations, dried nuts and fruit shops, kiosks, pharmacies, and perfumeries) and the organized channel (supermarkets, hypermarkets and discount markets). According to the decision, the components of FMCG retailing is retail services and the retail chains that provide these services.
In addition to this, the vertical agreements between retailers and the manufacturers/suppliers from whom they source the products they sell constitutes the supply leg of the market.
Supply markets are divided into two main groups: (1) food and (2) cleaning/hygiene. The producers/suppliers under Investigation also fell into these two categories.
Relevant Product Market and Geographic Market
Within the scope of the Investigation, an examination was made of the undertakings that carry out the retail sale and production/supply of food and cleaning/hygiene products. However, the relevant product market was not defined based on the grounds that it will not change the outcome within the scope of the case.
The suppliers/manufacturers party to the Investigation supply products to retailers in almost every region of Turkey. However, on the grounds that the definition of the relevant geographic market will not change the outcome, the relevant geographical market was also not defined in the Decision.
Competitive Concerns and Violation Determinations of The Board
Many determinations about the leading retail market chains and suppliers are included in the Decision. These determinations generally relate to the fact that competitor retailers exchange information among themselves, while suppliers act as a kind of hub and determination of resale price. The main determinations made in the Board’s decision can be summarized as follows:
- Competitor retailers were aware of each other's price transition decisions in advance through direct or indirect contacts between them. They engaged in coordination and maintained coordination of price transitions (and sometimes price increases).
- Competitor retailers coordinated prices and price transitions through suppliers for various branded products. There was transfer of information about transition dates and amounts to competing markets, again through suppliers. This included sharing competitively sensitive information such as future-oriented prices, seasonal activities and campaigns.
- Retailers, acting through their suppliers, ensured that prices were "corrected" by "interfering" with the prices of undertakings to reduce or increase prices. There was continuous monitoring of agreement compliance through punishment strategies such as issuing returns invoices to suppliers. Thus, the undertakings in question were party to an agreement or concerted practice that also exhibited the characteristics of a hub and spoke cartel in order to determine the retail sale prices of the aforementioned products.
- For their part, suppliers obtained competitive, strategic information about their competitors from the downstream market both by monitoring the shelf prices through employees and by making direct requests from retailers.
Defenses Made by the Investigated Parties
Both the suppliers and chain markets which were alleged to be parties to an agreement or concerted practice that exhibited hub and spoke cartel characteristics, and suppliers alleged to have committed violations of resale price maintenance, made written and verbal defenses regarding the determinations made against them. These defenses were of both a procedural and substantive nature. Some of them are briefly mentioned below:
- The retailers argued that direct communication between competitors could not be shown as it had not been demonstrated that competitively sensitive information was shared with supplier(s) with the intent of sharing it with other retailers. Therefore, the mandatory elements in the hub and spoke cartel were not satisfied.
- The retail sector is not suitable for a cartel agreement due to its unique characteristics.
- Statements regarding price transitions contain estimations and predictions can be easily made when the operation and structure of the market are taken into account. In addition, the parallel pricing behaviors observed can be explained by pursuance of the market leader's price or by barometric price leadership. Finally, the Authority failed to consider discounts offered during the COVID-19 pandemic period, and only certain products were selected and evaluated.
- The behaviors under Investigation do not indicate a hub and spoke cartel; they can be classified as resale price maintenance or information exchange. Hence the administrative monetary fine should be determined accordingly.
- The sales revenue from the limited number of products to which the possible infringement claims are related covers only a small part of the total sales revenues; this situation should be considered as a mitigating factor when determining the fine, or a fine should be calculated based on the turnover of these product groups.
Decision: A Record Administrative Fine
In consequence of the comprehensive Investigation, the Board imposed administrative fines amounting to 2.7 billion TRY in total on undertakings that it deemed to have violated Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”). Thus, one of the highest administrative fines in the history of Turkish competition law was imposed. As stated in the Decision, the Board decided as follows:
- Competitor retail chains facilitated coordination of price transitions through direct or indirect contacts through common suppliers, shared competitively sensitive information, interfered with competitor prices through suppliers, and constantly monitored compliance with collusion between undertakings through penalizing strategies such as issuing return invoices to suppliers in case of non-compliance. Thus, they violated Article 4 of Law No. 4054, which prohibits cartel-like agreements or concerted practices which aim to determine retail sales prices and which exhibit hub and spoke features.
- In addition, one of the suppliers under Investigation colluded with retailers regarding shelf prices and price transitions. In this context, a supplier that mediated the sharing of competitively sensitive information such as retailers' future prices and price transition dates violated Article 4 of Law No. 4054. It did this through agreements or through concerted actions that took the form of a hub and spoke cartel. Because the supplier clearly aimed to determine retail sales prices, it was jointly and equally held liable with the retailers for this violation.
Conclusion
It seems that the effects of the Board's Decision on Turkish competition law will be discussed for a long time. This is due to the fact that the defendants are expected to appeal, as well as the importance of the decision for those interested in the Board’s approach to hub and spoke cartels and information exchange in the retail sector. After the Board's devastating fine of 2.7 billion TRY, there is no doubt that the retailers and suppliers operating in the sector will act with greater care in the future. However, in the retail sector, which requires comprehensive information and data analysis to compete, undertakings will need a guide in order to fully comply with competition law rules.
- The reasoned decision of the Board dated 28.10.2021 and numbered 21-53/747-360.
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...
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...