Legal Aspect of Applying Price Parity Clauses by Digital Platform Owners

The article contains a legal analysis of the price parity clause. Its types from the point of view of Russian and foreign competition law. A number of decisions of Russian and foreign courts, antimonopoly regulators made on the basis of antimonopoly investigations against owners of digital platforms who used the clause on price parity in entrepreneurial activities were considered. A comparative analysis of these decisions was carried out to identify similarities and differences in approaches to the legal qualification of the actions of the owner of the digital platform on the use of the price parity clause. In particular, in the countries of the European Union, antitrust regulators and courts have qualified the relevant actions of the owner of the digital platform as a violation of the legislative ban on the conclusion of vertical agreements restricting competition. The Russian antimonopoly regulator and the courts qualify the actions of the owner of the digital platform as a violation of the ban on abuse of dominant position in the relevant commodity market.

The article also considers the approaches of Russian and foreign competitive departments, courts to determine the boundaries of commodity markets, the participants of which are the owners of the digital platform.

1. Mantovani Andrea & Piga Claudio & Reggiani Carlo. (2021). Online platform price parity clauses: Evidence from the EU Booking.com case. European Economic Review. 131. 103625. 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103625.

2. Chiara Caccinelli & Joëlle Toledano, 2018. “Assessing Anticompetitive Practices In Two-Sided Markets: The Booking.Com Cases”, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 193—234.

3. Bashlakov-Nikolaev I. N. On difficult issues in applying grounds for initiating prosecution for administrative offences under articles 14-9, 14-31-14-33 of the administrative offences code of the Russian Federation // Laws of Russia: Experience, Analysis, Practice. 2016;(1):48-50, (In Russ.)

4. Mackenrodt M.O. Price and Condition Parity Clauses in Contracts Between Hotel Booking Platforms and Hotels. IIC 50, 1131–1143 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-019-00886-x

5. Kathuria Vikas & Mackenrodt Mark-Oliver. (2021). The case against “Narrow” price parity clauses. Computer Law & Security Review. 41. 105574. 10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105574.

6. Ebru Tekin Bilbil (2019). Platform coopetition in the tourism industry: conflicts and tensions caused by the closure of Booking.com in Turkey, Current Issues in Tourism, 22:13, 1617—1637, DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2018.1461199

7. Wals Francisca & Schinkel Maarten. (2018). Platform Monopolization by Narrow-PPC-BPG Combination: Booking et al. International Journal of Industrial Organization. 61. 10.1016/j.ijindorg.2018.03.006.

8. Khokhlov E. S. Rights of commercial entities holding a dominant position // Competition Law. 2017;(2):33-36, (In Russ.)