FAS AND RCCA DISCUSSED ANTIMONOPOLY REGULATION IN THE DIGITAL AGE

The discussion took place within the framework of the traditional meeting "Dialogue with the authorities"

The decisions, remedies and warnings of the FAS Russia in the "digital markets" became the first topic of discussion of the participants of the round table. The number of antimonopoly violations in this area has increased significantly, drawing the attention of not only the antimonopoly service but also a wide range of experts. One example is the case initiated against Booking.com, to which the regulatory authority issued two warnings with a difference of one year: on the elimination of broad and narrow price parity.

Elena Zaeva, the head of the Department for Regulation of Telecommunications and Information Technology of the FAS Russia, noted that the antimonopoly service protects competition and the rights of market participants, including consumers. Our task is to create conditions for effective, innovative development of the market. The antimonopoly service is guided by the principle of unimpeded access to business in a well-functioning digital market, which does not pose a challenge to its participants.

Methods of identifying and proving anti-competitive agreements in the digital economy became the next topic of discussion. Anton Teslenko, the deputy head of the Anti-Cartel Department of the FAS Russia, drew attention to the fact that one of the purposes of the antimonopoly service is the development of digital methods of combating anti-competitive agreements. The implementation schemes of such agreements are constantly changing. The need for rapid response to the emergence of new schemes led to the creation of the project entitled "Big Digital Cat" (Большой цифровой кот), which includes the creation of a screening service, the search for digital means for analyzing goods markets, automation of work on identifying and proving the existence of cartels, as well as expansion of the list of evidentiary information.

In the discussion of the topic of "parallel import", the issues of the possibility of creating mechanisms for reimbursement by parallel importers of commensurate marketing and other costs for the promotion, development, and maintenance of goods were raised. Andrey Kashevarov, the deputy head of the FAS Russia, noted that the manufacturer is responsible for the main costs. One of the aspects frequently resorted to by entities opposing parallel imports is the negative impact on investment activity. But this step only promotes investment in the Russian Federation, since it will highlight the need to open a new production on the territory of the country.

Alexandra Nesterenko, the President of the Non-profit Partnership "Russian Corporate Counsel Association" noted that in terms of the Law on Protection of Competition, the practice of "double standards" can be considered as unfair competition by misleading consumers if two conditions are met simultaneously: the manufacturer positions its products for the Russian market as similar in terms of the quality characteristics of foreign products under the same brand. The second condition is if the specified qualitative characteristics of Russian products compare unfavorably with those of foreign products under the same brand. In case the manufacturer does not create false expectations, there is no violation.

In consideration of the issues of regulation and practice of antimonopoly compliance, Artem Molchanov, the head of the Legal Department of the FAS of Russia, noted that this institution is voluntary, its concept implies mitigating the responsibility of the offending entity if such an entity takes measures for the introduction and implementation of the effective compliance. He said that the FAS of Russia, together with the members of the RCCA, worked out an amendment to the Code of the Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation on the reduction of the responsibility for compliance. Also, the speaker emphasized the need for additional measures to promote the introduction and development of this mechanism. The very concept of the compliance institution is expected to function on the principles of self-regulation, and not public enforcement.