Several slaps in the face for the "P
The Competition Commission clearly states that PubliGroupe is obstructing and discriminating against its competitors
The Competition Commission (ComCo) is cautious: legally correct, it has only found "indications" that PubliGroupe "holds a dominant position on the advertising market and abuses this to the detriment of its competitors and trading partners". The further investigation should show whether this is actually the case and "whether PubliGroupe is discriminating against its business partners and blocking access to the market for competitors": PubliGroupe hinders competition in the advertising business and discriminates against its competitors. This is clear from the 19-page ComCo report on the preliminary investigations. In the report, the ComCo states that current and future competition in the Swiss advertising business "must be regarded as low", not only because of PubliGroupe's market share of at least 65%, but also because its network of leases and holdings in publishing houses and Internet platforms is "virtually impossible for other advertising intermediaries to circumvent". PubliGroupe's degree of market dominance is even so high that it is in a position to "control the market behavior of other advertising intermediaries" via the VSW guidelines for the commissioning of professional advertising intermediaries (see also page 1). The Competition Commission describes individual guidelines, which can be viewed at www.vsw-as sp.ch/d/fs-dok.htm, as "artificial barriers to market entry" or "discrimination".
The Competition Commission also invited PubliGroupe to comment and examined whether it could objectively justify the restrictions. However, the ComCo's comments are devastating, describing PubliGroupe's arguments as either "inapplicable", "unhelpful", "unfounded" or "insufficiently substantiated". And it concludes "that PubliGroupe impairs or obstructs the advertising intermediaries in the commencement and exercise of competition", which "cannot be justified by objective reasons".
It is now unclear whether these impediments to competition are also "unlawful" within the meaning of the Cartel Act and therefore to be classified as "abuse". It is the task of the further investigation to clarify this. In addition, the ComCo wants to examine whether PubliGroupe uses its market power to influence media decisions made by agencies with the aim of favoring its leased titles. Thirdly, it wants to clarify whether one of the VSW guidelines is to be regarded as a price maintenance clause and is in breach of the Cartel Act. And finally, it wants to establish whether the company Ad X is an isolated case or whether other (sector) intermediaries are also excluded from VSW.
Georges von Csernatony, member of PubliGroupe's management board, comments on the Weko report in a seemingly relaxed manner: "I don't think the Weko understood exactly what this matter is all about. But perhaps we expressed ourselves incorrectly through our lawyer. Either way - we still have ammunition." Incidentally, the Competition Commission had already made similar preliminary clarifications in 1997 and 1998. That's true. This time, however, there is a qualitative difference: for the first time, further investigations are being carried out.
Markus Knöpfli
The Competition Commission also invited PubliGroupe to comment and examined whether it could objectively justify the restrictions. However, the ComCo's comments are devastating, describing PubliGroupe's arguments as either "inapplicable", "unhelpful", "unfounded" or "insufficiently substantiated". And it concludes "that PubliGroupe impairs or obstructs the advertising intermediaries in the commencement and exercise of competition", which "cannot be justified by objective reasons".
It is now unclear whether these impediments to competition are also "unlawful" within the meaning of the Cartel Act and therefore to be classified as "abuse". It is the task of the further investigation to clarify this. In addition, the ComCo wants to examine whether PubliGroupe uses its market power to influence media decisions made by agencies with the aim of favoring its leased titles. Thirdly, it wants to clarify whether one of the VSW guidelines is to be regarded as a price maintenance clause and is in breach of the Cartel Act. And finally, it wants to establish whether the company Ad X is an isolated case or whether other (sector) intermediaries are also excluded from VSW.
Georges von Csernatony, member of PubliGroupe's management board, comments on the Weko report in a seemingly relaxed manner: "I don't think the Weko understood exactly what this matter is all about. But perhaps we expressed ourselves incorrectly through our lawyer. Either way - we still have ammunition." Incidentally, the Competition Commission had already made similar preliminary clarifications in 1997 and 1998. That's true. This time, however, there is a qualitative difference: for the first time, further investigations are being carried out.
Markus Knöpfli
