Author: Simon Stokes

Competition authorities around the world have been struggling with how to regulate online platforms. Concerns have been raised about firms’ use of people’s data, the market power or ‘gatekeeper’ status of certain platforms, the use of increasingly sophisticated technology to target advertising, and the risk of so-called ‘killer acquisitions’ – big companies buying smaller innovative ones with a view to extinguishing them as potential rivals. And all the time consumers’ reliance on these services is increasing.

On 26 February 2019, ACCC Chairman Rod Sims outlined the ACCC’s Compliance and Enforcement Policy and Priorities for 2019.

Tom Griffith, partner, Tania Maystrenko, associate and Meshal Althobaiti, lawyer, provide a summary of the key focus areas and sectors being targeted.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) 2019 Compliance and Enforcement Policy and Priorities was released last week as part of ACCC Chairman Rod Sims’ annual address to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia. The policy details the areas that the ACCC will prioritise for investigation, enforcement and reform over the next year. It is evident the ACCC will be active and thorough in pursuing the areas it has nominated for particular focus.

In light of growing calls for the introduction of penalties for the unfair terms in standard form contracts.

Partner, Sarah Johnson, examines emerging themes in the consideration of unfair contract terms

Calls for Reform

On 25 January 2019, Labor announced that it plans to make it illegal and impose fines of up to $10 million on suppliers caught putting unfair terms into contracts with small business. This announcement follows a number of recent statements by the ACCC, including by Mr Rod Sims, the Chair of the ACCC, at a speech to the National Small Business Summit in which he stated that the current unfair contracts protections for small business in the Australian Consumer Law have two fundamental problems:

Author: Dieter Hauck

Introduction
A recently published decision by the Cartel Court demonstrates how a long-term relationship turned into an equally lengthy disagreement, which came to a decisive turning point in the courts.(1) An Austrian company, active since 1824 in the rubber and plastic industry (Semperit), formed a joint venture in Thailand in 1989 with a group of Thai companies (STA) for the production of examination gloves made from natural rubber. While Semperit contributed industrial know-how, STA had local facilities and access to a supply of natural rubber. Together with the joint venture, separate distribution agreements were concluded, which basically reserved exclusive distribution of the products in Europe and the Middle East for Semperit. From 2015, STA also tried to sell the products outside Thailand, including in Europe. This led to several disputes in and out of the courts commenced by Semperit in an attempt to prevent STA from selling the products, including arbitral proceedings before the International Chamber of Commerce.