In cooperation with the Austrian competition authority (BWB) the Bundeskartellamt conducted an administrative proceeding against Google, Mountain View and Eyeo, Cologne for concluding anticompetitive agreements.The proceeding was terminated after the companies amended a so-called “whitelisting contract” between them which had originally significantly restricted Eyeo’s independent entrepreneurial ad-blocking activity.
Under the name “Adblock Plus”, Eyeo offers programs which can be integrated into standard web browsers to stop adverts from appearing on websites visited by users (ad blockers). The company offers advertisers and advertising marketers the possibility to exclude certain ads from the ad-blocking process (whitelisting). To qualify for exclusion advertisements must meet certain “acceptable ads” criteria, which define them as less intrusive from the user’s perspective. Eyeo demands a fee from larger advertisers and advertising marketers for its whitelisting service. It also concluded a contract with Google for this service.
Andreas Mundt, President of the Bundeskartellamt: “As the Federal Court of Justice also recently decided, ad blockers are a legal tool. It is understandable that consumers are interested in controlling the type and amount of online advertising they see. The offer of ad blockers is an integral part of the competitive process in online advertising services. Regulations in contracts aimed at restricting the offer of ad blockers are therefore anticompetitive and hence unacceptable.”
Full Content: Bundeskartellamt
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
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