{"id":13930,"date":"2024-11-08T09:12:34","date_gmt":"2024-11-08T09:12:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vila.es\/?p=13930"},"modified":"2024-11-15T11:58:55","modified_gmt":"2024-11-15T11:58:55","slug":"the-intel-case-the-cjeu-repeals-fine-against-intel-for-abuse-of-dominant-market-position","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vila.es\/en\/compliance-3\/the-intel-case-the-cjeu-repeals-fine-against-intel-for-abuse-of-dominant-market-position\/","title":{"rendered":"THE \u2018INTEL\u2019 CASE: THE CJEU REPEALS FINE AGAINST INTEL FOR ABUSE OF DOMINANT MARKET POSITION"},"content":{"rendered":"

ES<\/a><\/span>|EN|\u65e5\u672c\u8a9e<\/a><\/span>|DE<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

In a previous article dated the 13th<\/sup> of September 2024, and titled \u2018<\/strong>THE \u2018GOOGLE\u2019 CASE: THE CJEU CONFIRMS FINE FOR ABUSE OF DOMINANT INTERNET POSITION<\/em><\/span>\u2019<\/strong><\/a>, we reported on the Court of Justice of the European Union\u2019s (CJEU) upholding of the 2.4 billion Euro fine imposed by the European Commission (the \u201cCommission\u201d) against Google in 2017, for the company\u2019s abuse of its dominant internet position by means of preferential indexing in its comparison service and online product offers. Now, in this article, we will report on the CJEU\u2019s judgment of the 24th<\/sup> of October (C-240\/22 P) (\u201cthe Judgment\u201d), which, by contrast to the \u2018Google Case\u2019, repeals<\/u><\/em> a fine imposed on another multinational company on the same legal grounds: an abuse of dominant position.<\/p>\n

For context, we must first recapitulate the twenty-year history behind this legal dispute: Intel Corporation Inc. (\u201cIntel\u201d) is a company incorporated in 1989 in Wilmington, Delaware (U.S.A.) and dedicated to the development and manufacturing of computer microchips and processing units (CPUs). Following a complaint lodged by Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (\u201cAMD\u201d) on the 18th<\/sup> of October 2000, \u2013\u00a0AMD being the main competitor of Intel in the x86 CPU microprocessors (\u201cx86 CPUs\u201d) market \u2013 the Commission launched an investigation into Intel\u2019s alleged breaches of EU antitrust law. Some years later, on the 13th<\/sup> of May 2009, the Commission adopted a decision in which Intel was found guilty of a continuous infraction of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 54 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) (C(2009) 3726) (the \u201cDecision\u201d). Both Articles prohibit the abuse of a dominant position within the internal market.<\/p>\n

At this stage, it is worth referring to the definition of abuse of dominant position provided in our previous article:<\/p>\n

\u201cAn abuse of dominant position occurs when a company with a position of domination in a market behaves in such a way that may eliminate or restrict free<\/p>\n

competition, both in the market in which it principally operates, as well as<\/p>\n

in other markets into which it may expand.<\/p>\n

A dominant position in a market is not deemed illegal under the laws of the European Union. However, companies which find themselves in such a position must take extra care to avoid that their dominant position does not become an abuse thereof.\u201d<\/p>\n

In this Decision, Intel was deemed to have been in breach of Articles 102 TFEU and 54 EEA on the grounds that, between October 2002 and December 2007, it implemented a strategy aimed at foreclosing its main competitor, AMD, from the market for x86 CPUs.<\/p>\n

This strategy was two-fold: firstly, Intel granted loyalty rebates to four original equipment manufacturers (\u201cOEMs\u201d) of x86 CPUs \u2013\u00a0namely Dell, Lenovo Group Ltd. (Lenovo), Hewlett-Packard Company (HP), and NEC Corp. \u2013\u00a0on the condition that those OEMs exclusively sold computers containing Intel\u2019s x86 CPUs. Intel also awarded payments to Media-Saturn Holding GmbH (\u201cMSH\u201d), the largest desktop computer distributor in Europe, on the same condition. Secondly, Intel was found to have undertaken practices constituting, in EU antitrust terms, \u2018naked restrictions\u2019. In the EU Directorate General for Competition\u2019s new draft guidelines on the application of Article 102 TFEU (issued on the 20th<\/sup> of August 2024), these are defined in paras. 54 and 60(c) as conduct by a dominant undertaking that holds no economic interest for that undertaking except that of restricting competition. Briefly put, the practices imputed to Intel included paying three OEMs (HP, Acer Inc., and Lenovo) to postpone or cancel the launch of AMD\u2019s x86 CPU-based products, or to place restrictions on their distribution.<\/p>\n

The result of this Decision was the imposition of a EUR 1.06 billion fine on Intel. This is the point at which Intel and the Commission began to lodge various appeals contesting the fine, and which have only just been partially resolved by the Judgment issued last month. The appeal proceedings may be summarised chronologically:<\/p>\n