"Intel Loses Appeal Against European Antitrust Fine"

by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Contact

In a long-awaited judgment issued on June 12, 2014, the General Court upheld in its entirety the European Commission’s May 13, 2009, decision imposing a fine of €1.06 billion ($1.5 billion) on Intel for abusing a dominant position in the market for x86 CPUs. In particular, the court upheld the Commission’s findings that Intel’s rebates and payments to Dell, HP, NEC, Lenovo and the retailer MSH were conditioned on exclusivity or quasi-exclusivity, and that Intel’s cash payments to HP, Acer and Lenovo — characterized as “naked restrictions” by the Commission — were conditioned on those manufacturers’ cancelling or postponing the launch of PCs incorporating Advanced Micro Devices’ (AMD) x86 CPUs or restricting their distribution. The court further upheld the conclusion that both abuses constituted a single continuous infringement of Article 102 TFEU from October 2002 to December 2007.

The Intel rebates condemned by the Commission took various forms and involved, inter alia, quarterly lump sum payments based on the value of the customer’s total purchases of Intel x86 CPUs, volume targets, the percentage of the customer’s requirements represented by Intel CPUs (e.g., an 80 percent target in the case of NEC), and variable rebates based on the mix and performance of Intel CPUs. In many cases, some of the discounts were designed to enable its recipient to meet downstream competition from PCs equipped with AMD microprocessors and were related only to certain market segments e.g., desktops for corporate customers or notebooks. According to the Commission’s decision, in all cases the rebates were conditioned on exclusivity or quasi-exclusivity either for all customer purchases or for certain types of products (e.g., desktops or notebooks) although these conditions were not written into the agreements with HP, Lenovo or MSH. In the case of Dell, there was no written agreement at all, and the Commission’s finding of exclusivity rested on its determination that Intel had made clear to Dell that the level of its payments were conditioned on exclusivity.

The General Court fully upheld the Commission’s findings concerning the Intel discounts. In keeping with the precedents established in Hoffmann LaRoche and Tomra, it concluded that exclusive or quasi-exclusive agreements always will infringe Article 102, absent exceptional circumstances justifying the exclusivity or quasi-exclusivity, because they are designed to restrict the purchaser’s freedom to choose its suppliers and to restrict rivals’ access to the market. According to the General Court, in such cases it is not necessary to consider all the circumstances of the case, whether the conditional discounts have an actual exclusionary effect or the percentage of the market that has been foreclosed. In this connection, the General Court noted that an exclusivity condition is abusive because it enables the dominant firm to leverage its control over the non-contestable part of demand to the part that is contestable. However, the General Court ruled that it was not necessary for the Commission to use a cost-based test to determine whether an equally efficient competitor could have matched Intel’s conditional discounts and competed for the contestable part of demand (the as-efficient competitor (AEC) test). It also ruled that the Commission did not have to prove that the discounts were the decisive factor in a customer’s purchasing decision and that the Commission was not required to show that Intel’s conduct had actually foreclosed AMD or that there had been direct harm to consumers even though the conduct had already taken place before the Commission adopted its decision and the exclusivity conditions only affected 14 percent of the global demand for x86 processors. According to the General Court, the Commission was required “only to demonstrate that [Intel] had granted a financial incentive which was subject to an exclusivity condition.”

As concerns the alleged naked restrictions, the General Court concluded that the granting of consideration to restrict the launch or distribution of products equipped with AMD processors did not constitute competition on the merits and repeated its conclusions that there was no need to establish actual foreclosure effects.

The General Court also rejected Intel’s claims that the Commission had failed to gather and consider evidence that contradicted its conclusions and that Intel’s rights of defense had been violated by the Commission’s failure to make available to it an internal note of an interview with a key witness.

The General Court’s judgment is important for several reasons. First, it confirms the very strict approach under EU law to exclusivity conditions imposed by a dominant firm even in cases where the exclusivity relates only to a market segment, is de facto and has to be inferred from a course of dealing, or the condition is of short duration or can be terminated on short notice (in one case, 30 days). Second, the General Court rejected the relevance of a cost/price test for purposes of assessing the legality of Intel’s discounts despite the Commission’s reliance on this test as a corroborating factor in its decision. The General Court’s rejection of the AEC test is a significant setback for those within the Directorate-General for Competition who have sought to develop an effects-based approach to Article 102 and calls into question the status of the Commission’s Article 102 guidance paper published in 2009, which advocated use of the AEC test as a screening mechanism. Third, the judgment maintains the strict position that, at least where exclusivity is concerned, there is no need to show actual foreclosure effects or harm to consumers. Fourth, the judgment relies heavily on the distinction between exclusivity conditions and discount systems that are not conditioned on full or quasi-exclusivity. In its March 2012 judgment in Post Danmark, which involved selective, targeted discounts, the full plenum of the Court of Justice of the European Union indicated, inter alia, that the ability of an as efficient competitor to match a dominant firm’s discount without having to sell at a loss is relevant to the assessment of abuse as are actual foreclosure effects, at least in a case in which the conduct already has taken place. In its judgment in Intel, the General Court has sought to limit the applicability of Post Danmark by concluding that it does not apply to discounts that are conditioned on full or quasi-exclusivity.

The General Court’s Intel judgment is subject to appeal to the Court of Justice.

Download PDF

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Contact
more
less

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!