Investigation Launched: 2
M&A: 10
Cases Closed: (i) Fines imposed:

• Settlement: 3
• Regular procedure: 1

 (ii) Commitment: 1

L’Oreal settles resale price maintenance charges

The Turkish Competition Board recently investigated L’Oreal for potential resale price maintenance (“RPM”) allegations and internet sales restrictions. L’Oreal opted to settle the RPM allegations, resulting in a EUR 2.4 million administrative fine with a 25% reduction.

The Board accepted L’Oreal’s commitments regarding internet sales restrictions and imposed no fines. These commitments include notifying authorized services of their freedom to advertise products they are authorized to sell.

Stay Calm During Dawn Raids: A Pistachio company’s lesson

A resent dawn raid on a pistachio company highlights the importance of cooperation during on-site inspections. Typically, companies face fines for hindering such inspections due to panicking employees deleting e-mails or WhatsApp messages.

However, this case goes beyond ordinary. The company’s officials reportedly engaged in threatening behavior, throwing objects, yelling, and physically intimidating the case handlers. Feeling unsafe, the officials were forced to complete their inspection report outside of the premises of the company. Unsurprisingly, the company received a hefty fine for obstructing the investigation.

A shift in dawn raid fines?

The Turkish Competition Board has traditionally imposed fines on undertakings that delete documents during dawn raids, regardless of their recoverability or content. However, a recent decision hints a potential change in this approach.

Three Board members, including the president and vice president, issued a dissenting opinion advocating for leniency. They argue for tolerance towards smaller businesses lacking robust competition law compliance programs, especially when:

• Deleted documents are recovered and irrelevant to the investigation.
• Deletions are minimal, affecting only a few employees’ devices.
• The investigation does not involve cartel infringements, where stricter measures are justified.

Panic during a raid is considered a natural reaction, and automatic fines are deemed unfair.

This dissent suggests the Board might be re-evaluating its approach to fines during dawn raids, particularly for smaller businesses and non-cartel investigations.

Arçelik hit with EUR 10.4 million fine for resale price maintenance

Turkish home appliances giant Arçelik was fined for engaging in RPM. Notably the Competition Board applied a high standard of proof, excluding evidence where Arçelik directly intervened and successfully altered resale prices.

Pharmaceutical firms settle no-poach agreement probe

Two pharmaceutical companies, Abdi İbrahim and GlaxoSmithKline, reached a settlement with the Turkish Competition Board regarding an investigation into no-poach agreements. As part of the settlement, the companies received a combined reduced administrative fine of EUR 6.2 million.

The Board uncovers hub-and-spoke price fixing in Buy Box scheme

The Competition Board investigated a compliant alleging Ege Teknoloji (a supplier) manipulated prices through a “buy box scheme”. However, the Board found evidence of a more concerning practice: hub-and-spoke price fixing.

The investigation revealed that Ege Teknoloji influenced the “buy box” winner among its resellers and interfered with their resale prices. Additionally, resellers reported on each other’s prices to Ege Teknoloji. This behavior suggests:

• Coordinated Pricing: Resellers, with Ege Teknoloji’s assistance, coordinated their pricing.
• Information Exchange: Resellers provided Ege Teknoloji with completely sensitive information, knowing it would be shared with competitors to influence their market behavior.
• Awareness: Resellers receiving the information knew the source, indicating a coordinated effort.

Consequently, both Ege Teknoloji and its resellers were fines for engaging in a hub-and-spoke price fixing scheme.

Competition Board launches in-depth probes of two acquisitions

The Competition Board has launched in-depth investigations (Phase II) into two proposed deals:

• Fintech Firm Param Holding Eyes Kartel Holding: This probe examines the potential impact of Param Holding, a financial technology company, acquiring Kartel Holding, a financial services provider.
• Opta Germany Holding’s Metser Takeover Under Review: This investigation scrutinizes the proposed acquisition of Metser, a company operating in the iron, steel, and cement sectors, by Opta Germany Holding, a metallurgical company.

Duracell settles RPM charges, offers commitments on customer/territory restrictions

The Competition Authority has concluded its investigation into Duracell. The case centered on two potential violations: RPM and customer/territory restrictions.

Duracell opted to settle the RPM allegations, resulting in a EUR 230,000 administrative fine reduced by 25%. To address concerns about customer and territory restrictions, Duracell proposed commitments, avoiding additional fines.