Interdict Granted in Favour of GovChat, Preventing Removal from the Whatsapp Platform

Posted on by Editor

By Gina Lodolo

The South African Competition Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) has been called to consider a complaint of abuse of dominance against Whatsapp, arising out of its notice to terminate its contract with “GovChat” and off-board GovChat from the Whatsapp platform. GovChat is a chatbot service that allows the government to engage with citizens and provide government services such as health and education.

GovChat approached the Tribunal, alleging that due to the high market shares of Whatsapp in South Africa, competing platforms do not have sufficient scale (consumer numbers and reach) to provide alternatives on their own separate platform (such as WeChat in China). Smaller platforms are forced to make use of the Whatsapp network where Whatsapp’s terms of service do not allow for the expansion of the GovChat business model to become a competitor to Whatsapp. GovChat stated that its “entire existence will be materially prejudiced” if removed from the platform. It was alleged that the decision to off-board GovChat would put GovChat out of business and affect millions of citizens who benefit from the platform. CEO of GovChat, Eldrid Jordaan stated that “GovChat’s case is that Whatsapp/Facebook have abused their dominance because off-boarding GovChat has an exclusionary effect, preventing GovChat from operating in the relevant market.”Exclusionary acts are prohibited by Section 8(1)(c) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Act”) which states that a firm is prohibited from engaging in an exclusionary act if the “anti-competitive effect of that act outweighs its technological, efficiency or other pro-competitive gain”.  In this matter, Whatsapp/Facebook would have to prove that the exclusionary act has a pro-competitive gain.  The respondent has to discharge the allegation that refusing consumers access to an essential facility or a scarce service is an abuse of dominance according to sections 8(1)(b) and/or 8(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.

The alleged breach of the terms of service lies in the use of GovChat as a de facto communications platform for the government, when it is in fact not a government owned entity and WhatsApp stated of concern that “GovChat seeks to intermediate itself between government and citizens as a profit-making entity. It seems to aspire to become the official communication channel for the South African Government and effectively be the gateway through which citizens access government through Whatsapp”, where GovChat monetises confidential information of citizens through the use of the Whatsapp platform. Accordingly, citizens share confidential information which is monetized by a private entity, of which practice Whatsapp believes to be prejudicial to its platform and its terms of use, and therefore in breach of its terms of service.

GovChat logo

The competitive harm towards GovChat lies in the manner in which Whatsapp made use of its dominance through the unilateral off-board of GovChat. Whatsapp argues that its conduct cannot be anti-competitive as Whatsapp and GovChat do not provide the same facilities and are therefore not direct competitors. To this end, representing GovChat, Advocate Paul Farlam stated that “Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg intends to introduce a payment system, as such, locking GovChat out of Whatsapp would give Whatsapp an advantage as being locked out of the market for an indefinite period would stop GovChat from entering the market first, allowing Whatsapp to keep customers away from GovChat while Whatsapp enters that market”. If this is the case,  Facebook is hiding under the guise that the offboard is due to a breach in its terms of service, in order to remove the potential competition from GovChat in the same market.

On the 25th of March 2021, the Tribunal issued an interim interdict to restrain Whatsapp from removing GovChat from its platform, pending the outcome of the complaint that GovChat has lodged against Facebook with the Competition Commission. The interim interdict has been granted in favour of GovChat as it established a prima facie case demonstrating the alleged exclusionary conduct and anticompetitive effects that the off-board would have on GovChat. Facebook failed to rebut the prima facie case by providing pro-competitive gains that outweigh the alleged anti-competitive effects of the off-board. Due to the nature of the GovChat platform being in the public interest during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tribunal held that “the balance of convenience favours the granting of interim relief to the applicants who provide an invaluable service.”

Importantly, the relief is only interim in nature. Accordingly, the Competition Commission has not yet made a finding that Facebook has indeed contravened the Competition Act 89 of 1998  through an abuse of dominance.

Kenyan Competition Law and the Enforcement of Buyer Power- a Step in the Right Direction?

Posted on by Editor

By Jemma Muller and Keegan Sullivan

The Competition Tribunal (“Tribunal”) recently handed down a precedent-setting decision in the case of Majid Al Futtaim Hypermarkets Limited vs Competition Authority of Kenya and Orchards Limited which will not only set the scene on how the competition authorities will tackle the enforcement and assessment of buyer power in Kenya but will also have substantial consequences for retailers in Kenya.

In casu Orchards Limited (“Orchards”) alleged that Majid Al Futtaim Hypermarkets Limited (“Majid”) abused its buyer power. Majid is the operator of the supermarket “Carrefour”, which is supplied with probiotic yoghurts by Orchards. Majid was alleged to have abused its buyer power by: transferring commercial risks to Orchards; refusing to receive Orchards’ goods for reasons which could not be ascribed to Orchards; unilaterally terminating or de-listing the commercial relationship without notice and for no justified reason; applying rebates and listing fees marked as discounts; and requiring Orchards to deploy staff as its own cost.

The Tribunal ultimately upheld the Competition Authority of Kenya’s (“CAK”) judgment in finding, inter alia, that Carrefour abused its buyer power in relation to Orchards. While the Tribunal’s decision brings much-needed clarity on various issues, in particular how it will conduct its assessment of buyer power, which represents an area in competition law that has historically been unregulated, the assessment itself appears to only brush the surface in an analysis which typically (and with regard to comparative jurisdictions) necessitates a robust and thorough analysis.

The Commission, in reaching its decision vis-à-vis the existence and abuse of buyer power, based its decision on the Competition Act No 12 (“Act”), the Buyer Power Guidelines under part III of the Act, and international best practice. Section 24(2B) of the Act stipulates that the authority, in determining buyer power, must take into consideration:

“a) the nature and determination of contract terms;

b) the payment requested for access to infrastructure; and

c) the price paid to suppliers”

Section 24(2D) of the Act stipulates that buyer power means:

“…the influence exerted by an undertaking or group of undertakings in the position of a purchaser of a product or service to obtain from a supplier more favorable terms, or to impose a long-term opportunity cost including harm or withheld benefit which, if carried out, would significantly be disproportionate to any resulting long-term cost to the undertaking or group of undertakings.”

Of particular concern is the Tribunal’s approach and rationale in determining whether Majid had buyer power and whether it had abused its buyer power. Importantly, the Tribunal appears to be jumping the gun so to speak in expressing that “…the influence of power of the buyer becomes evident when the buyer engages in the offending conduct” and therefore, “by engaging in conduct which amounts to abuse of buyer power, there’s buyer power”. (our emphasis)

According to the Tribunal, the Act defines buyer power by reference to its effects. In casu, “abuse” was evidenced by, inter alia, declining to renegotiate terms, onerous rebates and listing requirements, and the refusal to take delivery of products that were delivered. This represents a notable departure from traditional competition law assessments of buyer power in various respects. In South Africa, for example, the assessment first centres around the existence of buyer power (which requires the buyer to be dominant), followed by whether there has been an abuse of that buyer power. Michael-James Currie from the Primerio International team notes that the Tribunal has essentially put the cart before the horse and notes that astute competition law counselling requires these trends and policy shifts to be well considered.

By engaging in what appears to be an ex-post assessment, the Tribunal’s judgment does not provide much insight or guidance to parties on how to ensure their conduct is aligned with the relevant provisions or how to negotiate trading terms common to commercial practice without facing potential accusations of abuse of buyer power.

Precedent on “buyer power” is scarce and therefore the precedent set by the Tribunal on the matter is of considerable importance both in Kenya and throughout Africa. When viewed comparatively the legislative framework governing “buyer power” in South Africa differs from the Tribunal’s judgment mainly on the requirement of “dominance”.

Section 8(4)(a) of South Africa’s recently amended Competition Act provides;

“It is prohibited for a dominant firm in a sector designated by the Minister in terms of paragraph (d) to directly or indirectly, require from or impose on a supplier that is a small and medium business or a firm controlled or owned by historically disadvantaged persons, unfair:

(i) prices; or (ii) other trading conditions.”

Contrastingly, the Buyer Power Guidelines under Kenyan law state:

“It is not necessary for the buyer to have a dominant position in the market. Although the provisions of abuse of buyer power are included under the provisions of abuse of dominant position, when assessing conduct that amounts to abuse of buyer power, proof of dominance is not a mandatory criteria.”

Additionally, the Tribunal did not undertake a robust assessment of the relevant market, or an analysis of potential foreclosure concerns, consumer welfare or efficiency. Rather, and instead of focusing on anti-competitive effects (which jurisdictions such as South Africa undertake), the Tribunal appeared to be more concerned with fairness to suppliers.

What remains to be seen is how the Tribunal will distinguish between, inter alia, those buyers who extract favourable trading terms by virtue of being dominant in the market vs those buyers who are not, without first undertaking a comprehensive assessment of the buyer’s position in the market.

This judgment, being the Tribunal’s first in relation to the abuse of buyer power, will shape the way in which buyer power will be assessed in Kenya. As such, it is vital that the competition authorities provide comprehensive guidance and much needed certainty to businesses.

Podcast explores latest developments across Africa

Posted on by Editor

The latest episode #122 of Sheppard Mullin’s popular NOTA BENE podcast features Primerio’s Andreas Stargard, exploring “Africa Q2 Check In: Economic Growth and Relevance.”

Africa continues to strive for economic growth through various trade partnerships and foreign investments, but long-standing challenges remain an impediment in certain respects. Is Twitter’s decision to open an African base in #Ghana any indication of the continent’s economic potential? We’re joined by #Africa competition and markets expert, Andreas Stargard, a co-founding senior member of Primerio Ltd., as he shares insights on Africa’s economic outlook in Q2 of 2021.

You can listen to it for free on all major ‘podcatchers,’ including here:

The price might be right, but simmer down: a “Yup” is still required from competition authorities in Mr. Price’s strategic Yuppiechef acquisition

Posted on by Editor

By Gina Lodolo and Estelle Naude


South Africans have been left with dropped jaws at the news that Mr Price Group has entered into an agreement to acquire the local Yuppiechef, known for their quirky, luxury kitchenware.


The owners of Yuppiechef are certainly pleased with their agreement with Mr Price Group to have 100% of their issued share capital acquired in cash for around R470 million and stated that “the timing is right for Yuppiechef to move forward with its growth ambitions with a partner who has a shared vision and the resources to help achieve this. I am excited about our future as a part of the Mr Price Group. They are a business which prides themselves on innovation and growth and we are strategically aligned in our plans. We share similar cultures and values which will make this an easy fit for both parties.”

According to Mr Price Group, the acquisition will provide the opportunity for Mr Price Group to expand their market share by reaching a high-end customer base in the kitchen appliance department, as well as expand their product variety from that which is already part of the Mr Price Group offering. Yuppiechef has a larger online presence than Mr Price Group, as such, Mr Price Group will reap competitive benefits from the online presence of Yuppiechef, which will enable them to become a more effective competitor with the likes of inter alia, Takealot.


According to the voluntary announcement from Mr Price Group regarding the acquisition of Yuppiechef, “the targeted effective date is subject to the fulfilment of both regulatory and commercial suspensive conditions which includes competition authority approval.” As such, it is important to note that section 13(3) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Act”) states that “the parties to an intermediate or large merger may not implement that merger until it has been approved, with or without conditions, by the Competition Commission.” Thereafter, according to section 12A(2) of the Competition Amendment Act 18 of 2018 (“Amendment Act”), a proposed merger must be evaluated on both competition and public interest grounds.


Accordingly, although South Africans are excited about the success story of the local Yuppiechef start-up, it is important to note that the proposed acquisition is still subject to scrutiny from the competition authorities before implementation of the merger can take effect.


Further, Yuppiechef is not the only home-grown retail store that Mr Price Group has sunk it’s teeth into as they seem untouched by the COVID-19 pandemic in their acquisition of Power Fashion, which was approved by the Competition Tribunal in March 2021. The acquisition of Power Fashion, with 170 retail stores, places Mr Price Group in an even stronger competitive position against the likes of Pep and JAM Clothing. According to the South African Primerio team, this acquisition places Mr Price Group in a strategic position to compete more vehemently with the lower end market, while Mr Price Group’s proposed acquisition of Yuppiechef places Mr Price Group in a position to access the higher end market. It seems that Mr Price Group intends to diversify its market share to such an extent that they are able to access the entire market, being both the lower end and the higher end consumer through the acquisition of Power Fashion and proposed acquisition of Yuppiechef respectively. The large scope of retail outlets provided by Power Fashion allows Mr Price Group to expand their physical store offering, while the online retail side will soon be catered for by the acquisition of YuppieChef.


According to Moneyweb the Mr Price Group’s JSE listing is “around 64% up on a year ago when South Africa went into its first Covid-19 lockdown”. Accordingly, Mr Price Group’s diversification and broader acquisition of market share may be one of the reasons that Mr Price Group finds itself at a stock high, unfettered by effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

S.A. considers non-binding advisory opinions (again)

Posted on by Editor

The South African Competition Act and the re-emergence of non-binding advisory opinions: Draft regulations published for comment

By Jemma Muller and Estelle Naude

After the suspension of the Competition Commission’s (“Commission”) advisory service in 2018, following the Constitutional Court’s decision in Hosken Consolidated Investments Limited v The Competition Commission, the regulation of non-binding advisory opinions is once again on the Commission’s agenda.

On the 23rd of March 2021, the Proposed Regulations on Non-Binding Advisory Opinions (“Proposed Regulations”) were published for comment by the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (“DTIC”) in Gazette 44310 GoN 248. The public have been afforded until 23 April 2021 to provide their comment on the Proposed Regulations.

These Draft Regulations are centered around three important aspects of non-binding advisory opinions, namely:

  • How one can request a non-binding advisory opinion from the Commission;
  • The legal status of a non-binding advisory opinion; and
  • The fees payable if one requests a non-binding advisory opinion.

When requesting a non-binding advisory opinion, the requesting party will have to provide the Commission with a fairly comprehensive set of information, including, inter alia, the requesting party’s name, the market(s) in which it operates, the reasons for seeking a non-binding advisory opinion, the nature of the legal advice requested, appropriate information to allow the Commission to determine whether the requesting party falls within one of the entities exempt from paying a fee, and any other facts, information and documents which would enable to the Commission to provide a non-binding advisory opinion.

The Proposed Regulations serve as a vital tool for parties to receive guidance from the Commission pertaining to their compliance with the Competition Act No. 89 of 1998, as amended (the “Act”). Obtaining guidance from the Commission, for example on whether a proposed merger is notifiable, could not only prevent the party concerned from facing penalties for contravening the Act, but also save time and resources and negate the need for paying a filing fee (although requesting a non-binding advisory opinion does attract a fee in certain circumstances, which is discussed more fully below).

Notwithstanding the above, the information that the requesting party is required to disclose to the Commission may have the unintended consequence of discouraging parties from utilizing the advisory function for fear of confidentiality concerns. In this respect, section 44 of the Act is relevant and states the following:

“1(a) A person, when submitting information to the Competition Commission or the Competition Tribunal, may identity information that the person claims to be confidential information.

…

(2) The Competition Commission is bound by that a claim contemplated in subsection (1), but may at any time during its proceedings refer the claim to the Competition Tribunal to determine whether or not the information is confidential information” (our emphasis)

On the 23rd of March 2021, the DTIC also published for comment amendments to forms, rules and regulations of the Commission in Gazette 44309 GoN 247 (available at https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202103/44309gon247.pdf) which deals with, inter alia, an amended Rule 15A which pertains to access to confidential information submitted to the Commission. Rule 15A states:

“(1) Before the Commission makes the determination contemplated in section 44(3) of the Act in respect of information submitted to the Commission under a confidentiality claim, the Commission must:

(a) issue a Notice of intention to make a determination in Form CC 23 to the claimant and the Respondent; and

(b) allow the claimant and the Respondent 5 business days to make representations to the Commission.

(2) Within 5 business days after the Commission makes its determination in terms of section 44(3), an aggrieved person may refer the Commission’s decision to the Tribunal in accordance with the Tribunal’s rules.” (our emphasis)

According to the Proposed Regulations, the Commission is permitted, upon receipt of a request for a non-binding advisory opinion, to determine whether the issues subject to the request should be dealt with in an investigation or any other process under the Act. Additionally, a non-binding advisory opinion cannot fetter the discretion of the Commission while it exercises its functions in terms of the Act. As with the information the requesting party is required to disclose to the Commission, this provision may serve to deter businesses from utilizing this advisory function for fear that information disclosed may later be used by the Commission in an investigation. In this regard, section 45A of the Act states:

“1(a) When making any decision in terms of this Act, the Competition Commission, subject to paragraph (b), may take confidential information into account in making its decision.”

This also raises the question on the status of confidential information submitted to the Commission pursuant to a non-binding advisory opinion, which the Commission later declines to issue an opinion on. According to the Proposed Regulations, if the Commission declines to issue an opinion, it must refund the fee paid by the requesting party if it appears the issues underpinning the advisory opinion will undermine the objectives of the Act.

Importantly, a request by medium enterprises and other market participants for a non-binding advisory opinion must be accompanied by a fee of R20 000 and R50 000 respectively. This is a notable increase from the fees the Commission previously charged under Rule 10.4 of the Conduct of Proceeding in the Competition Commission, which was a fee of R2500 payable by the requesting party.

While the proposed fee structure is a noticeable increase from the fees previously payable under Rule 10.4, the penalties for contravening the Act as well as merger filing fees prescribed by the Act can be far more costly than the cost of requesting a non-binding advisory opinion. It is also noteworthy that the Proposed Regulations expressly exclude certain entities from paying a fee, namely:

  • Constitutional institutions;
  • Departments;
  • Major public entities;
  • Micro enterprises;
  • Non-profit organizations;
  • Other public entities; and
  • Small enterprises.

It could be argued that the exclusion of the abovementioned entities from paying a fee may open the floodgates for requests for non-binding advisory opinions to the Commission, which could overburden an already inundated Commission.

In terms of the legal status of non-binding advisory opinions, the Proposed Regulations make it clear that the opinion has no binding legal effect on the Commission, the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Appeal Court.

The Proposed Regulations, while still in draft form, represent an important competition law development in South Africa and provide parties with much needed guidance, particularly in light of the complexities and legal nuances brought about by the recent amendments to the Act. Furthermore, the Proposed Regulations are largely in line with recent trends in promoting competition law compliance through competition advocacy as opposed to enforcement mechanisms.

Nigerian competition authorities finally established

Posted on by Editor

The Federal Government of Nigeria inaugurates the Federal Competition & Consumer Protection Commission (“FCCPC”) and the Competition & Consumer Protection Commission Tribunal (“CCPT”) 

By Gina Lodolo

The Federal Government inaugurated the governing board of the FCCPC together with that of the CCPT, in order to ensure that consumer protection is placed at the forefront in giving effect to Nigeria’s developmental goals.  The board was inaugurated by the Minister of Industry Trade and Investment, Otunba Adeniyi Adebayo on the 4th of March 2021.

Section 4 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018 (“Act”) provides that in the establishment of a Governing Board charged with the administration of affairs of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, the Board shall “consist of 8 Commissioners made up of a Chairman, a Chief Executive who shall also be the Executive Vice Chairman, two executive Commissioners and four non-executive commissioners”.

According to Section 5 of the Act, the Board members are appointed by the President from the six geo-political zones in the country, subject to confirmation by the Senate. Each Commissioner shall serve for a term of 4 years. The term may only be renewed by the President for a further term of 4 years.

The responsibilities of the FCCPC will be, inter alia, to monitor staff performance, financial reporting and to ensure accountability.  The FCCPC has been established as a policy-making body as gleaned from Minister Adebayo who stated that the agency “as the highest policy-making body, [… is] expected to ensure that the Federal Government’s mandate is achieved”.  Mr. Emeka Nwankpa, Chairman of FCCPC’s board, said that “the board was the first of its kind in the commission [and] appealed to the government to give the team the necessary support in order to function effectively”. Hajia Sharatu Shafi, Chairman of the CCPT board, said “the tribunal would ensure thorough and timely adjudication to ensure that Nigerians get value for their money and enjoy all privileges and protection”.

Minister Adebayo stated that the “present administration has zero tolerance for any form of corruption and this stance must not be compromised in any way”.  Further, “government will punish any corrupt practices perpetrated  by any board members as well as the management team.”

Uganda misses $5m Common Market payments, gets “suspension”

Posted on by Editor

As the local Daily Monitor reports, landlocked COMESA member state Uganda — ruled since January 1986 by authoritarian president Museveni — has failed to make requisite payments under the COMESA Treaty to the supra-national regional organization. Its arrears date back over two years, according to sources, and amount to roughly U.S. $4 to 5 million. Arrears carry with them a 1% per annum interest rate.

COMESA’s Secretary General has officially reprimanded the Ugandan government and placed the nation on the organization’s “sanction bracket.” Andreas Stargard, an attorney with Africa boutique law firm Primerio Ltd., notes that being sanctioned carries with it the nation-state’s loss of all privileges of COMESA membership, including its key free-trading benefits, during the duration of the sanctions being imposed. “It also means that Ugandan officials are not permitted to address official COMESA bodies, nor are Ugandan citizens permitted to be appointed to, or hired by, COMESA organs. It remains to be seen whether this suspension of Uganda will impact competition-law enforcement in any direct, appreciable way — what comes to mind is merger notification and the impact that Uganda’s being sanctioned may have on cooperation between the CCC and Ugandan authorities.”

The outstanding debt is all the more concerning as Museveni’s administration, in an attempt to cling to power after 35 years, recently reportedly spent large sums out of the state’s coffers on military-grade weaponry to prepare for the chaos precipitated by the recent hotly-disputed elections.

Antitrust writing awards – call for nominations

Posted on by Editor

Our partner publication Concurrences is happy to announce that submissions are now open for the 2021 Antitrust Writing Awards.

Now in their 10th year, the Antitrust Writing Awards are given for excellent written thoughts in the field. Participation in the Awards process, whether as an author, jury member, or reader, helps highlight the best antitrust ideas of the past year.

The present Call for Nominations concerns 3 types of publications:

  • Best Articles: Articles published or accepted for publication in 2020, in both academic journals and professional magazines.
  • Best Soft Laws: Most innovative non-enforcement tools issued by competition agencies in 2020, such as guidelines, market studies, white books, etc.
  • Best Student Papers: Articles written or published in 2020 by current students of law or economics.

Deadline for submissions is Monday, April 5, 2021. You can submit your article here: https://awards.concurrences.com/

Winners will be announced at the online Awards Ceremony on Wednesday, June 30, 2021, and accept their Awards in the presence of the Board and Steering Committee Members. To see the full list of Jury members, click here.

The Antitrust Writing Awards is a joint initiative between Concurrences and the George Washington University Law School.

Single Brush Stroke Stops Paints Cartel in its Tracks

Posted on by Editor

Three years after an intricate East-African antitrust saga involving global European and Asian paint manufacturers, the industry is in the region’s competition-law news again.

By Andreas Stargard

Upon receiving allegations, in 2018, of cartel-like practices among paint manufacturers and undisclosed distributors, the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) launched an investigation into the companies suspected of breaching competition rules. These investigations later uncovered that four firms, namely: Crown Paints, Basco Products Limited, Kansai Plascon and Galaxy Paints were deemed guilty of collusion and price-fixing, subjecting the purchasers to unreasonably high prices for various paint brands. The CAK has since revealed its findings to the Kenyan Parliament.

Crown Paints has a flagship brand called DuraCoat, which includes paint products for both interior and exterior finishing (painting and waterproofing). Dura Brands’ exposed collusion with the other three companies sparked fears that consumers had been buying these products at artificially inflated prices. This is particularly significant given that Crown Paints is listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange and is a heavyweight in the local Kenyan paints market, with further regional subsidiaries in Uganda and Tanzania (all COMESA member states).

Ruth Mosoti, Primerio Ltd.’s Kenyan competition practitioner, notes that the “CAK ultimately found that all four companies were in direct contravention of section 31 of the Competition Act, which addresses restrictive trade practices that prohibit companies from colluding with one another in order to determine product prices, as well as control when and to whom they will offer pricing discounts. The CAK alleges that these are all anti-competitive behaviors that are to the detriment of the consumer as well as other, outside competitors.”

In its Annual Report to Parliament, the CAK noted: “The investigations with respect to three other paint manufacturers and distributors were concluded in July 2019 with the Authority making a preliminary finding that the parties were involved in an anti-competitive agreement on prices, discount structure and transport charges.”

In line with section 36(c) and (d) of the Act, the CAK is entitled to impose financial penalties “to remedy or reverse the infringement or the effects thereof” which may span “up to ten percent of the immediately preceding year’s gross annual turnover in Kenya of the undertaking or undertakings in question”.

Of the four Companies, Basco Products Limited was the only company that did not challenge the CAK’s preliminary ruling and paid a penalty amount of Sh20.799 million. The company further agreed to abstain from committing any similar breaches in the future. While the other subject companies initially appealed the decision handed down by the CAK, AfricanAntitrust.com editorial staff have now learned that up to 3 of the accused firms have opted to settle, having withdrawn their appeals.

COMESA

It is also pivotal to note that on the 25th of February 2021, the COMESA Competition Commission (CCC) issued a cautionary note specifically pertaining to the consequences of forming artificial barriers to free trade, such as collusive practices and other horizontal agreements hindering competition.

The CCC — in its recent bid to become a fully-fledged competition enforcement agency that investigates not only merger activity (as it had done primarily so far) but also pursues hard-core antitrust offences such as cartels — made reference to Article 16 of the Regulations, prohibiting “all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which: (a) may affect trade between Member States; and (b) have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the Common Market”.

The Kansai paint allegations described above would fit the bill, but we shall see what cartel matters the CCC will pursue going forward, and in which industry segments… The CCC has stated that it “…will work closely with the national competition authorities in the Member States to ensure that offenders are detected, investigated and punished”. Furthermore, there is particular focus on “hard enforcement through screening, detection, investigation and punishment of offenders”.

Online Intermediation Platforms Market Inquiry: Call for Comments

Posted on by Editor

By Jemma Muller & Gina Lodolo / edits by Charl van der Merwe

The South African Competition Commission (SACC) indicated its intent to formally initiate a market inquiry in the Online Intermediation Platforms Market (Inquiry), in terms of section 43B(1)(a) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (as amended) (Competition Act).

In terms of the amended Competition Act, the SACC has the power to conduct a market inquiry at any time, “if it has reason to believe that any feature or combination of features of a market or any goods or services impedes, distorts or restricts competition within that market.

The SACC published its draft Terms of Reference (ToR), allowing members of the public until 12 March 2021 to submit their comments on the scope of the Inquiry.

The ToR envisage a limited scope of assessment, to include only online intermediation services and, in particular, eCommerce marketplaces; online classifieds; travel and accommodation aggregators; short term accommodation intermediation; food delivery; app stores (with the notable exclusion of ‘fintech’).

The Inquiry will be focused on both competition and public interest factors and will aim to consider:

  • market features that may hinder competition amongst the platforms themselves;
  • market features that give rise to discriminatory or exploitative treatment of business users; and
  • market features that may negatively impact on the participation of SMEs and/or HDI owned firms

According to the SACC in the ToR, these platforms have been flagged as they have the potential to self-preference and distort markets through algorithms, which is harmful to businesses who rely on these platforms to reach consumers.

The Inquiry follows shortly on the back of the SACC’s “Competition in the Digital Economy” report (Report), which was published for public comment in the final quarter of 2020. In the Report, the SACC specifically identified market inquiries are an effective tool to address market barriers (especially for Small Medium Enterprises (SME) and historically disadvantaged individuals (HDP)) and to address market feature concerns which may lead to reduced competition.

Allied to this, the ToR goes on to state, in support of the Inquiry, that the use of intermediation services can provide a manner of entry into a market for SMEs/ HDPs, but due to the potential distortions of the market, may also discriminate against them. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, domestic online business opportunities are vital in ensuring economic recovery as well as inclusive growth of SMEs and HDPs.

The Inquiry will be the first inquiry in terms of the Competition Act as amended. In this regard, the amended Competition Act empowers the SACC to “take action to remedy, mitigate or prevent the adverse effect on competition”.  This includes imposing structural or behavioural remedies.

It is also notable that the standard of assessment for market inquiries is a lower standard that that required in complaint proceedings. The SACC need only find that certain elements of the market may have “adverse effect on competition” (as opposed a substantial lessening of competition).

In light of these facts, firms in the relevant market cannot afford to remain passive participants in market inquiries and, instead, must consider and respond to the inquiry, as a respondent.