Intel's clash with the European Union over chip pricing has dragged on for eight years, but could tomorrow's ruling in Intel's case at the EU Court of Justice room the e use twenty year winning streak in antitrust cases. Intel has continued its battle against the Commission's one point twenty six billion dollar penalty in two thousand nine for using discounts to push out advanced micro devices and the decision by the EU second highest court to back the regulator
joining us. Is Pinur Actman, a professor at the University of Leeds School of Law, par Will you start by explaining the case against Intel? Sure? So? The case against Intel was that Intelling age in two types of anti
competite behavior. The first one was that is engaged in giving rebates to originally equipment manufacturers the company's lifestyle and HP and so on, in return for sailing computers that had exclusively Intel, so essentially was encouraging them to sell computers with intellliships as opposed to computers with a n
D hips. And the second conduct was that it also gave some months and payments uh to certain companies in Europe to delay the promotion of A and D products and so on, and the Commission, the European Commission sol thought that both of these practices infringed the rule against the vius of the dominant position in the year, and the General Court, which is the first court of instance
um essentially upheld the decision. So what we are waiting tomorrow is the final judgment on the matter which we were delivered by the Court of Justice of the opinion, and what what clues do we have is to how the court is likely to come out in this case.
So a very important clue we have is the opinion of the Advocate General Neil All, which was delivered on twenties October two thousand sixteen as a general opinion quite heavily criticized the legal assessment of the General Court in this case, and essentially as good General has argued that Thintel should win almost all of the grounds of appeals.
The Court of just generally follows that general. It doesn't always do so, but it's probably about eighty percent of the cases it's wont to follow the opinion of the Addux General. So that's really the main mainten actually we have in this case. So pinar if Intel does win. What does effect does that have on other companies? What does it mean for other companies that are fighting the
EU antitrust cases. So it would be most directly relivant for any other companies who might and who might have a certain degree of market power in their own markets.
The area on rebase is one of the most controversial areas of European composition law because there's severe criticisms of how the law has developed in this area to the extent that it's very formalistic, and essentially because it's found on the basis of the type of rebate is opposed to the effect of any given rebate on the competitive
competitive structure and the competition on the market. So tomorrow's judgment is the Court desided in the way that the Advocate General has appoint would suggest that we will be moving towards a more economic effects based approach, whereby rebase will than the judge on their actually effects on the market or potacial defects on the market as opposed to
what their names like. So, for example, at the moment, the General Court um judgments suggests that all exclusive rebates are very sale mowful, which the Advocate General has suggested
is a misinterpretation of the law. So it would be important for first of all all the companies who might begin rebates in their commercial relations with their customers, but also possibly for other dominant companies UM cases at the year, at the moment, because as you have that at the Bain in the European Commission hasn't lost the case of the visa dominance in over two decades. Can we put
some specific companies names of companies to that. So there there's a case involving Qualcom, there's an investigation involving Google. Are those companies that could benefit from this ruling? It depends on how far the Court of Justice goes. I mean they could benefits and principle if the court shows that it's willing to move towards a more sect sphased
approach rather than a formalistic approach. UM Google comes to mind first because an Intel's case BBS in question was actually and abies that has been found to be unlovel in many previous cases as well. So it's the court shows some willingness to change the interpretation of the law in such a well established area of conduct. It might also suggest that it could be willing to do so in more novel types of practices, as is arguably the case in Google. Thank you so much for being with us.
That's been our actment and professor of the University of Leads School of Law, and we will have that decision for you tomorrow on Bloomberg Law.