The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal agrees with the appellant that a fine imposed for anticompetitive MFC clauses should be set aside on the basis that such infringements are not by object anticompetitive and the Competition Authority had failed to prove effects (ComparetheMarket)

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on 8 August 2022 set aside a £17.9 million fine against price comparison website Compare The Market, criticising the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) legal and evidential assessment of the case. The CAT found that the CMA’s “anecdotal evidence” [1] failed to prove that Compare The Market kept home insurance premiums artificially high by using most favoured nation clauses (MFNs) in its contracts with insurance providers. The CMA has said it is disappointed with the CAT’s ruling and is considering its options, including a potential appeal. The traditional concern with MFNs is that they can make it more difficult for rival platforms to compete MFNs (also called parity clauses) limit the prices or terms that a supplier can offer for a product

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

  • Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (London)
  • Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (London)

Quotation

Henry Mostyn, Jonas Zenger, The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal agrees with the appellant that a fine imposed for anticompetitive MFC clauses should be set aside on the basis that such infringements are not by object anticompetitive and the Competition Authority had failed to prove effects (ComparetheMarket), 8 August 2022, e-Competitions September 2022, Art. N° 108379

Visites 354

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues