Blog Post

Microsoft fined for non-compliance: a game-changer in antitrust settlements

The European Commission has crossed into new territory. For the first time, it has sanctioned a company for not abiding by an antitrust settlement: a €561million fine imposed on Microsoft for not keeping to promises made by the company back in 2009.

By: Date: March 6, 2013 European Macroeconomics & Governance Tags & Topics

The European Commission has crossed into new territory. For the first time, it has sanctioned a company for not abiding by an antitrust settlement: a €561million fine imposed on Microsoft for not keeping to promises made by the company back in 2009 (see the Commission press release).

Background. The case is one of the last outstanding issues stemming from the clash between the Commission and Microsoft that started in the early 2000s, when the company still faced little or no competition in computer-related markets. Microsoft was accused of tying its internet browser Explorer to Windows, de-facto leveraging its dominance in the operating systems market in order to protect or extend its power in the browser market. This practice is sanctionable by a fine of up to 10% of Microsoft’s global turnover under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Microsoft originally escaped the fine by entering into a settlement with the Commission. Under the terms of that settlement, Microsoft had to provide computer users with a ‘ballot screen’ so that they could compare all major potential available alternatives and choose whether to stick to Explorer or swiftly switch to another browser (see Ms Kroes announcement at the time). That gave enough confidence to Microsoft’s competitors that a level playing field in the browser market was restored. However, between May 2011 and July 2012, the ballot screen did not pop up in Windows 7 – service pack 1. Today’s Commission decision punishes this as an infringement of the settlement agreement.

The significance of this fine goes far beyond the Microsoft case. As I mentioned already in a previous Bruegel blog post (European antitrust fines: a new wave of deterrence?), levying fines in antitrust is mostly about sending signals to discourage companies from breaching antitrust laws in the future. Companies refrain from entering into cartels or abusing their dominant position if what they expect to gain (ie the additional profit with respect to a counterfactual scenario in which they compete fairly) is less than what they expect to lose (ie the fine imposed by the antitrust authority if the illegal activity is discovered). The question is then: does it make sense to offer a company that allegedly caused harm to consumers an easy way-out, such as a settlement with no accessory fine entailed, as was the case with Microsoft in 2009?

Costs and benefits of settlements. From an economic perspective the answer is not straightforward. First, there is a risk that a settlement as opposed to an immediate fine will reduce deterrence by reducing the expected costs associated with the abuse. If I know that Almunia will offer me a chance to settle, why not breach competition law, reap the benefits today and then go back to competition after the settlement is done? Second, by definition, the settlement is a compromise. So there is a chance that not all outstanding issues will be sorted out, particularly because a settlement comes after a preliminary assessment by the Commission (in the form of a statement of objections), and issues that would have been tackled in a final infringement decision might not yet have been identified at that stage of the process. Third, and perhaps most importantly: with a settlement the strength of a case cannot be fully assessed, since it is extremely unlikely that a settlement would end up in court, and it leaves no legal precedent, reducing the chance to provide guidance to industry on the antitrust treatment of novel issues, leaving unaltered the likelihood that the same problem will occur again in the future. A settlement cures the symptom, not the illness.

However, settlements have juicy counterbalancing features that perhaps can explain their increasing popularity in EU antitrust proceedings. In dynamic industries (such as ICT), timing is critical. A settlement allows quick identification of the issue and the introduction of a correction in the market in order to restore normal competitive conditions almost immediately. The life-cycle of an antitrust proceeding may often outlive that of a computer or a tablet. It would be of little consolation to consumers to overpay for a product for years and then witness the levying of a huge fine in relation to a product they do not use anymore. A settlement also acts at once against the source of extra profit arising from the abusive conduct. In the case of antitrust proceedings with no settlement, that may not happen: the abusive conduct may be perpetrated until the final decision is taken. Therefore, even if it may reduce the expected costs associated with abusive conduct, a settlement can nevertheless reduce its expected benefits.

In addition, a settlement may not run the risk of overlooking outstanding issues if the proposed commitments are properly market-tested before the settlement decision is taken. In that sense, given the level of uncertainty at the time of the statement of objections about the nature and the relevance of the factors that led to the abuse, a settlement may offer an opportunity to the Commission to minimise the risk of future anti-competitive behaviour by imposing the acceptance of conditions that are designed to open the market. For example, in the case of an antitrust abuse in the airlines industry, a settlement package may entail the release of slots at important airports in order to favour entry and reduce the likelihood of a future abuse of dominance. In a way, this means that post-settlement, a company’s profit may be lower than what it would have been if the abuse had not been perpetrated in the first place. This may provide enough discouragement so that the possibility of a settlement in case things go bad and an antitrust investigation is launched would not alter a company’s incentive to breach antitrust laws.

A game changer. Crucially, the balance between the costs and benefits of a settlement depends on the credibility of the commitments. If the commitment is really implemented and is capable of bringing the market back to competition from day 1, going for settlements can certainly have a positive effect on general welfare. Guidance on the treatment of novel cases can still be given through dedicated guidelines; meanwhile the abuse is stopped and customers are better-off.

But checking compliance with commitments is a difficult task, especially when commitments do not entail structural divestments but rather specific conduct on the part of the dominant company: this may be very difficult to monitor, particularly at a time in which the Commission is struggling with declining available resources. But if non-compliance entails little risk of incurring significant costs, the whole credibility of the settlement as a welfare-improving tool is questionable. In that light, Almunia’s decision to sanction for the first time a company for non-compliance with a settlement has a clear motive. Almunia cannot increasingly rely on settlements for his antitrust investigations without being certain that those settlements will effectively right the wrong that prompted the investigation (see the most recent examples: E-books, Thomas Reuters, Rio Tinto Alcan). One of the most important high-profile cases currently on Almunia’s agenda, the Google search-bias case, is expected to end up in a settlement after the Summer. In the context of a similar case, Google recently settled with the Federal Trade Commission in the US. However, in the US, Google made non-binding commitments that generated harsh criticism about the effectiveness of the remedy, should it be needed (see, for example, the concurring and dissenting opinion of Commissioner Rosch). In addition to remarkable differences in the substance of the settlement, the Commission take on the Google case will therefore be likely to have a significantly different impact than in the US.

Today’s Commission decision on Microsoft implies that should Google decide to enter into a settlement with DG Competition, it will have to exert extra care to not give the impression that it is deviating from the commitments that such a settlement will entail. The potential price to pay for sending the wrong signal is a fine up to 10% of the company’s global turnover.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Uuriintuya Batsaikhan
Zsolt Darvas

European spring - Trust in the EU and democracy is recovering

Trust in the EU and satisfaction with democracy are returning in southern European countries, where citizens’ confidence in European institutions was dented during the crisis years.

By: Uuriintuya Batsaikhan and Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 24, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Special edition - The Treaty of Rome at 60

The 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome presents an opportunity to reflect on the progress of European integration so far, and to discuss what the future will bring for Europe. We explore these topics in this special edition of The Sound of Economics.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 22, 2017
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Conversations on the future of Europe

On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, we held an event of four conversations between Bruegel scholars and European thinkers.

Speakers: Maria Demertzis, Ivan Krastev, Emmanuel Mourlon-Druol, Johanna Nyman, André Sapir, Catherine Schenk, Andre Wilkens and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 22, 2017
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Mar
31
10:30

Central bank communication in a low interest rate environment

At this event, we are pleased to welcome Mr. Benoît Coeuré, Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank at Bruegel.

Speakers: Benoît Coeuré and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read about event

Upcoming Event

Apr
5
09:30

Micro- and macro-based methods in assessing the impact of investment

This workshop will discuss methods for accurately evaluating the performance of public and private investment initiatives.

Speakers: Sabine Bernabe, Francesco Di Comite, Grégory Claeys, Zsolt Darvas, Helmut Kraemer- Eis, Aron Gereben, Simon Mizrahi, Amine Ouazad, Debora Revoltella, John K. Swales, Simone Signore, Natacha Valla, Georg Weiers, Marcin Wolski and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

PC 08 2017 cover

The case for a common European refugee policy

This Policy Contribution discusses the needs for a European migration policy, and considers where more policy coordination is actually needed.

By: Massimo Bordignon and Simone Moriconi Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 20, 2017
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Apr
6
12:30

Can EMU survive a multi speed Europe?

On 6 April Bruegel, as in previous years, will host the presentation of the Euro Yearbook, a collection of experts’ insights on the construction of the European Monetary Union through 2016.

Speakers: Pablo Zalba Bidegain, Maria Demertzis, Fernando Fernandez, Javier Méndez Llera, Karl Pichelmann and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

The inflation basket case

Inflation in the euro area has finally reached 2%. But Draghi is right to warn that the underlying dynamics do not point to this being a self-sustaining trend. Breaking down the numbers shows that many inflation basket items are still showing weak price growth or even deflation.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 17, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Guntram B. Wolff

What future for Europe?

The Commission's White Paper on the future of the EU sets out five scenarios, but misses the fundamental questions facing Europe. How should the EU interact with its neighbourhood? How can we manage the tensions created by multi-speed integration? And above all how can the Euro be made sustainable in the absence of a major step towards fiscal union?

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 16, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Grégory Claeys

Debunking 5 myths about Frexit

French elections are fast approaching and the debate on euro membership is now in full swing. ‘Frexit’ supporters promise that the benefits of leaving the euro would be substantial for the French economy, that economic policy would be greatly improved, and most importantly that the exit process would be a piece of cake. This blog post shows that these claims are greatly exaggerated if not outright lies.

By: Grégory Claeys Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 10, 2017
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Pia Hüttl
dsc_1000

An update: Sovereign bond holdings in the euro area – the impact of QE

Since the ECB’s announcement of its QE programme in January 2015, national central banks have been buying government and national agency bonds. In this post we look at the effect of QE on sectoral holdings of government bonds, updating our calculations published in May and November 2016.

By: Pia Hüttl and Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 9, 2017
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

The Belarusian economy: are real changes on the way?

At this event we discussed where the economy of Belarus is heading, and what this implies for the EU.

Speakers: Kateryna Bornukova, Rumen Dobrinsky, Robert Kirchner, Dzmitry Kruk, Alexander Zaborovski and Georg Zachmann Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 9, 2017
Load more posts