Post by account_disabled on Jan 11, 2024 6:53:18 GMT
As a judicial entity, Cade has the institutional duty to present a response, in accordance with the assumptions of the legal system, to a controversy or legal situation submitted for assessment. Among the many thorny issues that you face, the objective of this brief text is to highlight a specific type of vertical restriction that was the subject of recent analysis by the municipality. SpaccaAccording to specialized literature, vertical price restrictions generate ambiguous effects on the market [1] , that is, they can cause beneficial or harmful effects on consumer well-being depending on the parameters on which such restrictive policies are based. Therefore, it is common for companies to consult Cade when implementing minimum or maximum price policies.
The objective of these consultations [2] , therefore, is to obtain the authority's opinion on the legality of the policy from a competition point of view, aiming to mitigate risks and, consequently, provide greater legal certainty in the actions of companies, as it reaches different links in a given Telegram Number Data production chain. In this sense, in 2021, Cade's Administrative Court analyzed Ipiranga's consultation [3] on the creation of a maximum price suggestion policy. In that decision, the court established an understanding of the competitive legality of the policy submitted for analysis. In the same year, Michelin's consultation analysis began, pending a final decision, which addresses the announced minimum price policy [4] (PMA).
According to Michelin, this policy was developed unilaterally by the consultant, without influence from resellers on the commercial strategy adopted, with the aim of protecting the company's business model, and has not yet been implemented pending the authority's deliberation. According to the consultation, the policy does not have a discriminatory nature between the channels in which it will be implemented (physical and online), that is, it grants equal treatment to resellers of Michelin products regardless of the means in which the consumer completes the sale. Furthermore, it was highlighted that it is limited to the advertisement price, with no resale price being fixed, as the reseller may sell at the price he deems appropriate, including below the advertised price.
The objective of these consultations [2] , therefore, is to obtain the authority's opinion on the legality of the policy from a competition point of view, aiming to mitigate risks and, consequently, provide greater legal certainty in the actions of companies, as it reaches different links in a given Telegram Number Data production chain. In this sense, in 2021, Cade's Administrative Court analyzed Ipiranga's consultation [3] on the creation of a maximum price suggestion policy. In that decision, the court established an understanding of the competitive legality of the policy submitted for analysis. In the same year, Michelin's consultation analysis began, pending a final decision, which addresses the announced minimum price policy [4] (PMA).
According to Michelin, this policy was developed unilaterally by the consultant, without influence from resellers on the commercial strategy adopted, with the aim of protecting the company's business model, and has not yet been implemented pending the authority's deliberation. According to the consultation, the policy does not have a discriminatory nature between the channels in which it will be implemented (physical and online), that is, it grants equal treatment to resellers of Michelin products regardless of the means in which the consumer completes the sale. Furthermore, it was highlighted that it is limited to the advertisement price, with no resale price being fixed, as the reseller may sell at the price he deems appropriate, including below the advertised price.