The Swedish Competition Authority has concluded its investigation into potential anti-competitive cooperation in the market for vehicle inspection services, closing the case after determining there are no longer grounds to continue proceedings.
The investigation examined whether a provision on keyword advertising contained in guidelines issued by a trade association for vehicle inspection services could infringe the prohibition on restrictive cooperation under the Swedish Competition Act and Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Specifically, the authority assessed a suspected agreement among competing companies not to use each other’s trademarks or company names in keyword advertising.
According to the authority, such an arrangement “may limit the consumer’s ability to become aware of competing alternatives to the company the consumer is searching for at the time of the search” and could constitute a violation of competition rules. The member companies of the relevant trade association collectively account for approximately 99 percent of the market, heightening the potential competitive significance of any coordinated conduct.
The investigation found that there had been contacts between certain companies regarding keyword advertising. In these exchanges, companies had persuaded or attempted to persuade competitors not to use rival trademarks or company names as keywords, referring to the content of the association’s guidelines.
The guidelines in question were developed in 2015 by a predecessor to the current industry body, Swedish Vehicle Inspection Industry. During the investigation, the Swedish Vehicle Inspection Industry stated that it had not applied the guidelines and formally distanced itself from them, clarifying that they do not apply to either the association or its member companies. As a result, the agreed restriction concerning the use of competing companies’ trademarks or company names in keyword advertising is no longer applicable between any undertakings.
In light of these developments, the Swedish Competition Authority concluded that there is no longer reason to continue investigating whether the conduct violates the prohibition on anti-competitive cooperation. The authority emphasized, however, that the decision to close the case “does not imply a position on whether the procedure is in compliance with the competition rules.”