Compare The Market ruling 'not green light' for price restriction clauses – Pinsent Masons

Change language and content customisation
Find an advisor
Get in touch
Find an office
Search for:
Jump straight to:
Please enter a search term
We can use your selection to show you more of the content that you’re interested in.
Sign-up to follow topics, sectors, people and also have the option to receive a weekly update of lastest news across your areas of interest.
Got an account already?

Search for:
Please enter a search term
Out-Law News | 11 Aug 2022 | 3:55 pm | 3 min. read
A recent UK ruling does not mean that clauses in contracts that place restrictions on the price suppliers can offer products or services on other sales channels beyond their own are acceptable under competition law, an expert has said.
Angelique Bret, a competition law specialist at Pinsent Masons, was commenting after the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) overturned (200-page / 1.44MB PDF) a decision by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) that concerned the use of so-called ‘wide’ ‘most favoured nation’ (MFN) clauses by price comparison website Compare The Market.
MFN clauses, also known as ‘parity’ clauses or obligations, are restrictions that require one party to an agreement to offer the other party goods or services on terms that are no worse than those offered to its own customers or to third parties. MFNs can be categorised as either ‘wide’ or ‘narrow’ in scope.
Under a wide MFN suppliers agree not to charge a lower price on their website or any other sales channel, which guarantees the beneficiary of the MFN that they will get the best price. Under a narrow MFN suppliers agree not to set lower prices through their own websites compared to the prices they are offering the beneficiary of the MFN. Generally, narrow MFNs have been found to be permissible but wide MFNs have been considered to have the potential to restrict competition, depending on the circumstances. 
Compare The Market was fined £17.9 million by the CMA in November 2020 after the regulator determined that the platform had used wide MFN clauses in its contracts with home insurers that breached competition law. This was the first time the CMA had issued a decision punishing the use of MFN clauses and imposing a fine.
At the time, the CMA said this was because they “prohibited the home insurers from offering lower prices on other comparison websites and protected Compare the Market from being undercut elsewhere”. It added that the clauses “also made it harder for Compare the Market’s rivals to expand and challenge the company’s already strong market position as other price comparison websites were restricted from beating it on price”.
However, Compare The Market raised an appeal against the CMA’s decision before the CAT. The tribunal has now determined the appeal in Compare The Market’s favour. It ruled, among other things, that the CMA had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its findings that Compare The Market’s use of the clauses had the appreciable effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition between price comparison websites.
The CAT confirmed that “the mere fact that these clauses were effective – in the sense that they were complied with – is not sufficient to demonstrate an anti-competitive effect”. It said the CMA had failed to satisfy the burden on it to show “that there was such an effect”.
Both UK and EU competition law prohibit agreements, arrangements and concerted business practices which appreciably prevent, restrict or distort competition, or where this is the intended result, and which affect or may affect trade within the UK or the EU respectively. Whether an arrangement is anti-competitive is assessed on the basis of its object, or its effect, on competition, rather than its wording or form.
Bret said: “A ‘by effect’ competition case – where a harmful effect on competition resulting from the agreement or conduct in question must be demonstrated on the basis of credible evidence – can be challenging to establish.”
“This differs from a ‘by object’ infringement – where the agreement or activity in question is considered inherently anti-competitive and amounts to a per se breach of competition law, without the need to adduce evidence demonstrating actual anti-competitive effect on the market,” she said.
Bret said that the use of wide MFN clauses in retail vertical agreements, such as those between a business and its suppliers, are categorised as “hardcore” restrictions under the UK’s new Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Order (VABEO). The VABEO applies an automatic exemption to restrictions of competition in vertical agreements so long as certain conditions are met. One condition is that the agreements do not contain hardcore restrictions, which are deemed highly likely to be anti-competitive.
“The CMA’s case against Compare The Market predates the VABEO, which came into force only on 1 June 2022,” said Bret.
“The blacklisting of wide retail MFNs in the UK increases compliance risk for businesses, and notably diverges from the EU Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Regulation where wide MFNs are excluded from the block exemption but are not expressed as a hardcore restriction,” she said.
It remains to be seen whether the CMA will appeal the CAT ruling to the Court of Appeal in London.
A CMA spokesperson said: “The CMA is disappointed with the judgment and is currently considering its contents as well as any next steps.”
Contact an adviser
Angelique Bret
Out-Law News
19 May 2022
Sign-up to receive the latest news, insight and analysis direct to your e-mail inbox
Out-Law News
Zoe Betts tells HRNews about an important extension of health and safety duties affecting ‘limb (b)’ workers
Out-Law News
The UK tax authority’s seizure of three non-fungible tokens (NFT) as part of a probe into a suspected £1.4 million VAT fraud is “unlikely to be the last”, an expert has said, as agencies around the world fight back against cryptocurrency-based crime.
Out-Law News
Amy Hextell tells HRNews how disability adjustment audits can help with legal compliance and inclusivity issues
Out-Law Analysis
Pensions disputes: managing member expectations paramount
Out-Law Analysis
UK subsidy control post-Brexit: access to effective judicial remedies
Out-Law News
'Steps of court' settlement was not negligent, court rules
Out-Law News
'Vast majority' of companies not seeking to avoid tax
Out-Law News
'World first' industrial decarbonisation strategy developed in the UK
Out-Law Analysis
3D printing: UK product safety issues
Out-Law News
5G potential for business highlighted in UK funding programme
Out-Law Analysis
A global view of the law applicable to an arbitration agreement

2022 Copyright Pinsent Masons LLP
We use cookies that are essential for our site to work.  To improve our website, we would like to use additional cookies to help us understand how visitors use the site, measure traffic to our site from social media platforms and to personalise your experience.  Some of the cookies that we use are provided by third parties.  Please visit our Cookie Policy for more information. To accept all cookies click 'Accept all'.  To reject all optional cookies or choose which optional cookies to allow, click ‘Cookie settings’.  This tool uses a cookie to remember your choices.
See our Cookie Policy for more information


Leave a Comment