Case C-211/22, Super Bock: The Binon (formalistic) Era Is Over, And Vertical Price-Fixing Is No Longer The Odd One Out
By: Pablo Ibañez Colomo (Chillin’ Competition)
A previous post on this platform revealed why formalism is ineffective in assessing whether an agreement limits competition. Simply including clauses for price-fixing or market-sharing does not automatically indicate a ‘by object’ infringement.
What’s more, the legal precedents do not support the rigid interpretation of Article 101(1) TFEU. The Court consistently highlights the importance of considering the economic and legal context in reaching any conclusion regarding the agreement.
Speaking of legal precedents, there was a small instance of formalism akin to Asterix’s Gaul. In the Binon case, the Court of Justice declared that vertical price-fixing restricts competition by object (Binon, para 44). This conclusion was solely based on the nature of the restraint itself…
Featured News
Walmex Awaits Antitrust Ruling as Mexican Regulator Probes Alleged Practices
Oct 8, 2024 by
CPI
Crypto.com Sues SEC, Alleging Regulatory Overreach in Crypto Industry
Oct 8, 2024 by
CPI
Elite US Universities Face New Antitrust Suit Over Financial Aid Practices
Oct 8, 2024 by
CPI
Kirkland & Ellis Strengthens Antitrust Practice with New Partner from FTC
Oct 8, 2024 by
CPI
TikTok Hit with Lawsuits from 13 US States and DC
Oct 8, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh