Antitrust in focus - June 2019

Allen & Overy LLP
Contact

Allen & Overy LLP

This newsletter is our take on the antitrust developments we think are most interesting to your business. Börries Ahrens, partner based in Hamburg, is our editor this month. He has selected:

Gen​eral​​

  • European Commission seeks to impose interim measures for first time in nearly two decades
  • Chinese fine adds to global RPM enforcement record

Consumer & Retail

  • ​Win for Booking.com as German court certain pricing clauses are not anti-competitive
  • Mexico opposes Walmart's acquisition of online groceries delivery start-up

Digital/TMT​

  • UK report on digital mergers recommends a change of approach

Energy

  • UK energy regulator fines suppliers and facilitor for market sharing
  • Petrobras settles Brazilian oil-refining probe with divestments

Industrial & Manufacturing

  • European Commission blocks Tata-ThyssenKrupp steel joint venture

Life Sciences​

  • ​U.S. DOJ allows pharma company to avoid guilty plea with deferred prosecution agreement​

Gene​ral​

European Commission​ seeks to impose interim measures for first time in nearly two decades

In recent months there have been calls from commentators, expert reports and antitrust officials for antitrust authorities to make greater use of so-called ‘interim measures’, which require companies suspected of engaging in anti-competitive behaviour to stop their conduct pending a final decision in an investigation. The European Commission (Commission) has rarely used its interim measures powers in practice – the last time it did so was 18 years ago, against IMS Health. But now, in a landmark move, it has sent a Statement of Objections to Broadcom, notifying the firm of its intention to impose an interim measures order (read our full summary). The Commission’s preliminary conclusions are that Broadcom is likely to hold a dominant position in various markets for the supply of components for TV set-top boxes and modems, and that Broadcom may have abused that dominant position by entering into agreements with customers that require them to purchase exclusively (or almost exclusively) from Broadcom. This, says the Commission, may result in the elimination or marginalisation of Broadcom’s rivals from the market before the end of the Commission’s full investigation into various exclusionary practices. It concludes that there is therefore a risk of serious and irreparable harm to competition, and that Broadcom should be prevented from enforcing these provisions. Broadcom is not required to halt any behaviour just yet – it will now have the opportunity to respond to the Commission’s charges. In the meantime, the Commission will push on with its full investigation, which it opened on a formal basis at the same time as issuing the Statement of Objections.

The case signals that the Commission is willing to make use of interim measures, particularly in technology/digital markets where the calls for greater and earlier intervention have been strongest. In the UK, for example, the Furman report on digital markets (see our summary) recommended a streamlining of the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)’s processes to facilitate greater and quicker use of interim measures. The CMA Chairman’s letter to the UK Government proposing changes to the UK’s antitrust regime (see our summary) was also clear that greater use of interim measures is “essential” in order to respond to the challenges of the digital sector. It seems that the Commission may have taken notice of these calls. But Broadcom is only one case – we will need to see more interim measures being imposed to be able to conclude that the Commission has fully changed its practice in this area.

Chinese fine adds to global RPM enforcement record

The enforcement of resale price maintenance (RPM) agreements is never out of the antitrust headlines. Cases over the last year include the European Commission’s decision to fine electronics manufacturers for fixing online resale prices, the Korea Fair Trade Commission’s decision to penalise two tire manufacturers for imposing sanctions on retailers who failed to comply with minimum resale price requests and the Turkish antitrust authority’s decision to fine Turkcell for RPM with regard to its top-up credits. The Chinese antitrust authorities have been particularly active in this area. Most recently, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) fined​ Ford’s joint venture with Changan Automobile Group CNY162.8m (approx. EUR20.9m / USD23.56m) for forcing dealers in Chongqing to sell its passenger cars above a certain price since 2013. The SAMR considered that Changan Ford had failed to provide evidence that its conduct could fall within an exemption, for example by improving technology, and instead concluded that the manufacturer’s conduct “deprived the downstream dealers of pricing autonomy”, excluded and restricted intra-brand competition, decreased inter-brand competition and harmed consumers. There are two points to note. First, in past cases the Chinese courts and antitrust authorities seem to have adopted diverging approaches to the question of whether RPM-related cases should be assessed using a ‘rule of reason’ analysis or treated as illegal per se. In practice, the SAMR seemingly continues to treat RPM as illegal per se. Second, the case may mark a shift in the SAMR’s fine calculation method; the level of Changan Ford’s penalty amounts to 4% of Changan Ford’s overall Chongqing sales in the preceding year, not only sales of those vehicles subject to the RPM.

It is anticipated that over time, clarity on whether RPM requires ‘by object’ or ‘by effect’ analysis will be provided. In the meantime the SAMR is expected to continue to take a tough line to deter RPM as well as misconduct more generally in the auto sector and we expect RPM to remain vigorously policed in China. Back in Europe, some stakeholders question whether a blanket ban on RPM is still justified. The European Commission is set to review its approach this year as part of a revision of its rules on how competition law applies to vertical agreements.

Consumer & Retail

Win for Booking.com as German court finds certain pricing clauses are not anti-competitive

Pricing agreements between hotels and booking portals have faced intense antitrust scrutiny in recent years. In 2015 the Federal Cartel Office (FCO) found that pricing arrangements between hotels and Booking.com were anti-competitive. The clauses in question were so-called ‘best-price’ or ‘most favoured nation’ (MFN) provisions, which prohibited hotel operators from offering lower prices on their own sites or on rival portals, essentially guaranteeing that Booking.com would always be able to offer the best rates. Booking.com offered to modify the clauses so that hotels could offer rooms cheaper on other booking portals, although the hotels would remain restricted from displaying lower prices than Booking.com on their own websites. A number of other antitrust authorities around the EU (including France, Italy and Sweden), who were also investigating the arrangements, accepted this “narrow” version of the MFN clauses, and closed their probes. But the FCO took a more hard line approach. It found that all the MFN provisions were problematic from an antitrust perspective, concluding that they infringed the hotels’ freedom to set prices and made entry of new platforms difficult. Booking.com appealed, and has now won its case at the higher regional court in Düsseldorf. The court found the narrow MFN provisions were not anti-competitive – it concluded they are necessary, to ensure a fair and balanced exchange of services between portals and hotels.

The ruling brings the German position in line with the approach broadly accepted by other antitrust authorities across the EU. The FCO stated in a tweet that it will wait to see the court’s full ruling before deciding whether to appeal. In the meantime, Danish booking platform Nustay has filed a complaint with the European Commission against Booking.com and Expedia over alleged illegal pricing clauses and abuse of dominance – it remains to be seen whether the Commission will take any action. More generally, the German investigation shows the potential for differing interpretations and applications of antitrust rules by EU national antitrust authorities. This could well be an area that the Commission attempts to address as part of the forthcoming revisions to its guidance on vertical agreements.

Mexico opposes Walmart’s acquisition of online groceries delivery start-up​

The outcome of the substantive analysis of retail mergers tends to be very jurisdiction-specific. A fact highlighted this month with the Board of Commissioners of Mexico’s competition authority (COFECE) deciding to block retailer Walmart’s proposed acquisition of on-demand grocery delivery company Cornershop. Chile’s competition authority, FNE, had unconditionally cleared​ the deal in January. FNE found that the acquisition would not substantially harm competition in Chile given the dynamism and current volume of the country’s online delivery services industry, and the fact that Cornershop services are mainly provided to Walmart. In comparison, COFECE had three vertical concerns: (i) Cornershop could refuse to offer its services to Walmart competitors; (ii) Walmart could refuse to retail its products on platforms operated by Cornershop’s competitors; and (iii) the merged entity could induce Walmart’s rivals to abandon the Cornershop platform through the strategic use of information produced and provided by competitors to retail their products. The commitments offered by the parties failed to resolve these concerns. Press reports are that Walmart has abandoned the acquisition as a result of the COFECE decision.

The case will be of interest to the retail sector globally – players are likely less familiar with how competition authorities deal with vertical tie-ups, especially involving digital markets, than with assessing and remedying horizontal overlaps.

Digital /TMT

​UK report on d​igital mergers recommends a change of approach

The question of whether competition policy and rules should be amended to better address the digital age continues to challenge governments and regulators. In recent months, a string of reports have been published which aim to contribute to the debate, including the Furman report in the UK (see our summary), an EU expert panel report (see the April edition of Antitrust in focus for a summary) and a study by the University of Chicago’s Stigler Center. Latest in line is an independent report commissioned by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) from economic consultancy Lear. The report evaluates several past UK digital merger decisions by the CMA’s predecessor, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), including Facebook/Instagram and Google/Waze. While not calling into question the OFT’s ultimate conclusions, the report does find “gaps” in its analysis, in particular a focus on the users’ side of the markets in question, rather than considering substitutability for advertisers. The report makes a number of recommendations for changes in the CMA’s approach to assessing digital mergers:

• Ensuring it considers current business models and monetisation strategies of the parties

• Improving the information available to the CMA when defining the ‘counterfactual’ (i.e. the expected situation in the absence of the merger), e.g. by using dawn raids to gather internal documents, using transaction value as a screen to identify where a more detailed analysis is required, and better understanding the market for online advertising

• Using a timeframe of longer than two years when assessing, for example, market entry

• Being more willing to accept uncertainty in the counterfactual

In a speech announcing and commenting on the report, the CMA’s Chief Executive Andrea Coscelli broadly supports the recommendations, emphasising that “evolution not revolution” of UK merger tools is needed to deal with mergers in the digital economy. He notes that the CMA is already starting to make changes in practice, pointing to the recent PayPal/iZettle phase 2 clearance, where it considered a ‘dynamic’ counterfactual. On the more radical suggestion of using dawn raids in merger cases, however, he makes the welcome comment that there are “questions around whether dawn raids of this type should ever be necessary”. In parallel the CMA has also published a call for views on digital mergers, with a view to updating its 2010 merger assessment guidance. Antitrust authorities around the world will no doubt review the report and results of the consultation with interest. We expect they will also follow closely any steps to implement one of the Furman report’s recommendations: a new digital markets unit – Theresa May has announced that Professor Furman will advise the Government on this project. For more information on the Lear report read our full summary​.

Energy

UK energy regulator fines suppliers and facilitator for market sharing

Antitrust infringement decisions in the UK energy sector are uncommon. So the energy regulator (Ofgem)’s decision to fine two suppliers and an energy software and consultancy service a total of GBP870,000 for market sharing and customer allocation in relation to the supply of gas and electricity to domestic customers is notable. The case stands out as Ofgem fined the software and consultancy service, Dyball Associates, GBP20,000 for acting as a facilitator. The two suppliers, E Gas and Electricity and Economy Energy, agreed not to actively target each other’s customers through face-to-face sales and shared commercially sensitive and strategic information detailing their current customers. Dyball enabled that arrangement by designing, implementing and maintaining software systems that allowed customer meter point details to be shared and recruitment of each other’s customers to be blocked, and by itself sharing customer lists and instructions to block customer switching. In targeting the service provider, Ofgem notes that Dyball was aware of the suppliers’ conduct and anti-competitive intent.

For the UK energy sector, there is perhaps a hint that more cases are to come: Ofgem notes that its action “sends a strong signal to suppliers that [it] will take action and penalise those who undermine competition and do not act fairly”. More widely, the decision acts as another reminder of the risks of facilitating a cartel, even if the facilitator is not itself active in the cartelised markets. Outside the UK, action has been taken against facilitators by the European Commission (against, e.g., ICAP in relation to the Yen interest rate derivatives cartel, currently under appeal) and national antitrust authorities (see the April edition of Antitrust in focus for a Spanish case in the tobacco sector). A final point: competition stakeholders globally will read with interest how Ofgem dealt with any use of algorithms; it says it will publish the full text of the decision in due course.

Petrobras settles Brazilian oil-refining probe with divestments

The Brazilian competition authority (CADE) has entered a landmark agreement with Petrobras to settle an abuse of dominance probe in the oil refining sector. CADE opened a preliminary investigation into the State-controlled oil company in December 2018, following an economic study by the authority which found that Petrobras holds 98 per cent of the market. Under the terms of the settlement, Petrobras has agreed to sell eight of its 13 refineries. Buyers must be independent of Petrobras, and certain assets cannot be sold to the same buyers. Petrobras must now start the sales process: it has until the end of 2021 to complete the divestments – if it fails to comply with the terms of the settlement, the CADE will likely resume the investigation.

CADE’s Superintendent has described the settlement as historic, with the divestments to result in the opening of the Brazilian oil refining market to competition. The case fits with a wider strategy of Brazilian regulators to improve competition in fuel markets (including a working group set up in summer 2018 between CADE and Brazil’s oil and gas regulator ANP to look at the structure of the sector). Interestingly, though, not all CADE Tribunal members were behind the settlement agreement: two rejected the proposal, reportedly arguing that Petrobras’ decision to sell the refineries was a unilateral decision by the company, and was unrelated to the investigation. And it appears that the Senate’s Economic Affairs Committee is now also getting involved: it has invited​ members of CADE as well as various other stakeholders, including a representative from Petrobras, to participate in public hearings to discuss the approval of the agreement and the dissenting opinions.

Industrial & Manufacturing

​European Commission blocks Tata-ThyssenKrupp steel joint venture

Merger prohibitions are rare. The European Commission has only blocked ten mergers in the last ten years whilst approving over 3,000. But Tata-ThyssenKrupp is the third deal it has vetoed this year (after Siemens/Alstom and Wieland/Aurubis). The announcement was expected; the steel producers had waived the white flag in May on the basis that giving further concessions would undermine the economic logic of their proposed joint venture. The Commission’s concerns centred on two sectors: the steel packaging industry and the automotive industry. It considered that the merger would have reduced choice in suppliers and led to higher prices for European customers of metallic coated and laminated steel products for packaging and automotive hot dip galvanised steel products. The Commission notes that these particular steel products are very specific, complex to produce and of high value with few suppliers beyond the merging parties able to offer significant volumes to customers. And the customers – ranging from major corporations to numerous SMEs – claimed they would not be able to turn instead to third country suppliers; imports would fail product and service quality and delivery requirements and carry security of supply issues. The parties offered divestments, but the Commission considered the asset packages too limited in product and geographic scale and scope. In relation to tin plate, for example, the proposal included no assets for the production of the necessary steel inputs and covered only a small part of the overlap between the parties.

The prohibition lands as stakeholders debate whether the EU merger control rules should be adapted to facilitate the creation of ‘European Champions’ better able to survive in the global marketplace. In this context, Commissioner Vestager has argued that blocking Tata-ThyssenKrupp would protect the European packaging and automotive industry, and ultimately consumers of canned food and cars, from a huge steel manufacturer that could reduce supply and innovation and raise prices. It is clear that promoters of a new veto power – allowing EU governments to override Commission decisions – have work to do if they are to convince all industry players, governments and regulators of the merits and efficacy of a new system.

Life Sciences​

U.S. DOJ allows pharma company to avoid guilty plea with deferred prosecution agreement​

In step with other antitrust authorities across the globe, the U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division (DOJ Antitrust) has been investigating anti-competitive conduct in the generic pharmaceutical industry for a number of years. This month it brought its third charge in a probe into a price fixing, bid rigging and customer allocation conspiracy in relation to glyburide, a medicine used to treat diabetes. Having previously charged Heritage Pharmaceutical’s former CEO and former president, DOJ Antitrust has now charged the company itself. Under the terms of a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), Heritage has admitted its guilt, will pay a USD225,000 criminal penalty and will cooperate fully with DOJ Antitrust’s on-going criminal investigation into the company’s competitors. In a separate civil resolution, Heritage has agreed to pay USD7.1m to resolve False Claims Act allegations in relation to glyburide and two other drugs.
This marks DOJ Antitrust’s first use of a DPA with a company other than a bank. A DPA involves the filing of criminal charges but deferring prosecution in exchange for a negotiated agreement to comply with conditions, in this case for three years, after which time the charges against the company will be dismissed. As long as their conditions are fulfilled, DPAs do not lead to criminal conviction and the collateral consequences that follow from other regulatory agencies. Banks, for example, are automatically disqualified from providing certain services regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Labor when they are convicted, absent receipt of discretionary waivers from those authorities. Essentially, conviction can automatically disqualify a bank from conducting substantial portions of its business. To avoid this draconian outcome, and the resulting risk to the stability of the financial market, DOJ Antitrust has occasionally agreed to DPAs with certain banks.
DOJ Antitrust has not previously permitted corporates like Heritage to resolve criminal conduct with DPAs. And DOJ Antitrust typically has taken the view that where, as here, high-ranking employees have pleaded guilty for conduct attributable to the employer, the employer must be prosecuted. Heritage seems to have benefited from the importance of affordable generic drugs to the U.S. health care system, where rising costs are a hot topic in political debates. Conviction for Heritage would likely have caused the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to exclude Heritage from all U.S. federal health care programmes, including Medicare and Medicaid, for at least five years, meaning one less source of affordable drugs for U.S. consumers. In addition, this resolution comes at a time when DOJ Antitrust is actively promoting good corporate citizenship, which Heritage appears to have shown. Heritage facilitated the interviews of current and former employees, provided substantial cooperation to DOJ Antitrust’s investigation into it from as early as July 2016, and has implemented and will continue to implement an improved compliance programme. DOJ Antitrust wants more of its targets to focus on compliance and cooperation, and flexibility in charging decisions is one of the tools available to it in pursuing that goal.
It’s hard to say which factor ultimately tipped the balance to a DPA for Heritage. We anticipate that further enforcement activity in the open pharmaceutical investigations may provide further guidance on DOJ Antitrust’s policy shift.

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.

© Allen & Overy LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Allen & Overy LLP
Contact
more
less

Allen & Overy 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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. 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. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our 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 are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy 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 our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

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

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit legal.hubspot.com/privacy-policy.
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit www.newrelic.com/privacy.
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit www.google.com/policies. To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout. This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.