#LeBrief: Disney + Day, Visual Studio 2022, Frances Haugen at the AN, PS5 cracked

Free and Iliad will each have to pay 3 000 euros to M6, France Télévisions and TF1. Epilogue of the procedure launched by the operator against the decision of the Competition Authority authorizing the creation of Salto. The on-demand television and distribution offer created by the three channels. This concentration operation, through the creation of a joint venture, was criticized by Free and Iliad, but also by Molotov, who joined their camp over the course of this appeal.

All consider that AdlC’s competitive analysis, prior to this concentration, did not comply with the framework defined by the Commercial Code, in particular on the scope of activity of Salto on the market considered.

In a long judgment, the Council of State in turn rejected each of the points raised. He judged, for example, that it was without error of assessment “ that the Competition Authority considered that the markets for the acquisition of sports rights and cinema films recent were not affected by the operation ”.

Free and Iliad also maintained that the Autorité de la concurrence should, in the course of its decision, have asked the parent companies of Salto to specify “ the shares they held in the market for the marketing of data relating to audiovisual consumption ”. The idea? Measure the telluric effects of such an operation.

The Council of State has swept away this request: the presence of Salto’s parent companies is necessarily marginal in this data marketing market. On the air, “ this data is only accessible through monitoring devices managed by third parties ”.

Online, same conclusion. The collection of the corresponding data remains for the most part carried out here again by third-party companies, affirms the judgment. He, in the same vein, dubbed the commitments made by the chains, while the public rapporteur Laurent Cytermann had on 13 October judged “ insufficient some of the commitments, and pleaded for the partial cancellation of the green light from the competition officer ”notes Capital.

The judges considered both relevant and effective these commitments to prevent the anti-competitive effects of this concentration. Admittedly, two of the parent companies subsequently refused to make their content available to Free for reading in the interface developed by the company, but this circumstance “ cannot (…) affect the legality of the decision, which is assessed on the date on which it was rendered ”.

  • The decision of the Council of State
Back to top button