Abuse of dominance through data overcharges and EU competition law enforcement

The past year the EU commission and numerous competition authorities have addressed the matter of applying competition law to online platforms. The discussions concerning Facebook and Amazon have even touched upon the difficult relation between data and competition law. Despite the many debates concerning the application of competition law in digital markets, little attestation was given to the calculation of fines and damages in such cases. This post tries to address some of the issues that may arise in this regard so as to  spark more discussion on the often forgotten enforcement aspects of data related abuses of dominance by online platforms.

The calculation of fines

The enforcement of cartel practices and abuses of dominance by the Commission is governed by secondary legislation, namely Regulation 1/2003. The matter of fines is found in Articles 23-26 where the maximum fine that an undertaking can receive is set at 10% of its total turnover in the preceding business year. The calculation of the penalties in each case is performed in line with the finning policy of the Commission embodied in the Commission’s 2006 Guidelines on the imposition of fine for competition law infringements. The guidelines indicate that the Commission should calculate the penalties in each case in two phases.  First, the basic amount of the fine, meaning the default fine for the infringement in the respective case must be established. The calculation of the basic amount is done based on the value of sales by the concerned undertaking(s) of its goods or services to which the infringement directly or indirectly relates in the relevant market within the EEA, multiplied by the number of years of infringement. In the second phase, once the basic amount of the fine is established, the guidelines provide several grounds based on which the Commission can modify this amount based on either aggravating or attenuating circumstances. The amount of the final fine cannot however exceed the maximum amount dictated by Regulation 1/2003, namely 10% of the total turnover in the preceding business year.

Although this current calculation method seems rather reasonable when dealing with most cases, which involve indeed the sales of products or the offering of services, it may not be easily applied in the case of ‘data overcharge’ abuses in the case of online platforms. Online platforms entail two (or multi) sided markets, which may require defining more than one market (see discussion post on this topic). As the market definition also determines which sales must be taken into account for calculating fines, the question is how can the market definition influence the calculation of fines in cases dealing with data overcharges by online platforms.

Which sales should be taken into account when dealing with data?

If the ‘data overcharge’ takes place on the same relevant market with a product or service offered for a fee by the platform the calculation according to the guidelines could be applied as in any other case. For example if a price comparison platform were to be accused of a ‘data overcharge’ abuse than the fine could be defined based on profits made from search-based advisement service provided by such platform for both consumers and businesses. This is because the market definition of a price comparison platform will predominantly result in one market for both sides of the platform (see here an explanation on why this is the case). Similarly, if the market definition results in two separate yet related markets and data overcharge occurs on the relevant market where sales take place, the common mode fines calculation seems suitable. However, if the side of the platform where the ‘data overcharge’ occurs is offered free of charge to consumers and constitutes a separate relevant market than the market where the sales of products or services take place the calculation may become more complex. The question is then whether the fines can be calculated based on the sales of products or services on the other side of the platform, which concerns a separate relevant market. So in a case comparable to Facebook’s alleged abuse of data overcharge, could the fine be calculated based on Facebook’s sales of advertisements? Or otherwise, could a data overcharge by Amazon from consumers result in a fine based on Amazon’s revenue from the marketplace and/or its sales as a retailer? Unfortunately these yes or no questions have quite complex implication regardless of the answers chosen.

If a fine for data overcharge abuse cannot be calculated based on the sales on the related yet separate relevant market on the other side of the platform a serious problem will arise. Since many platforms do not sell the data they gather from users and offer such users access to the platform free of charge it would mean they have no sales on that respective relevant market and therefore no way to calculate the fine. This is clearly not an acceptable outcome. The alternative, however, is not much better. If the fine for data overcharge can be calculated based on the sales on the side(s) of the platform how would the calculation look? Is there any correlation between the amount or degree of data overcharge and the sales value that are considered for the purpose of calculating the fine and if so how is such a ratio established? Furthermore, is it relevant whether the data overcharge resulted in a foreclosure effect on the respective related market(s) or is the exploitative character of such practices sufficient for imposing a fine according to sales on related markets?  Moreover, is a breach of data protection law a pre-requisite for finding such an abuse? If not, does such a breach constitute an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of imposing a competition law fine? Is parallel enforcement of data protection law and competition law possible in such cases and if so what are the implications of such circumstances for the imposition and calculation of fines?

These are some of the many questions that have yet to be fully considered when discussing the relation between online platforms, data and competition law. Furthermore, when shifting the discussion from public to private enforcement additional difficulties continue to arise.

Data overcharges and actions for damages

The reliance on sales and on positive prices for the purpose of the calculating fines is also integral to the private enforcement procedure of EU competition law. The Damages Directive (2014/104/EU) deals with the compensations of damages caused by infringements of articles 101 and 102 TFEU. According to the text of the Directive, as specifically noted in Article 3, its aim is to facilitate the full compensation of damages caused by such infringements to the extent that such compensation is possible.

The concept of damages within the scope of the directive includes actual loss, loss of profit/ opportunity plus interest. However, these concepts relate in the scope of the Directive solely to monetary damages in the form of various types of financial overcharges caused by the infringement of competition law. Data overcharges from consumers are by definition non-monetary overcharges an thus appears to fall outside the scope of damages within the Directive that is focused on material damages. When dealing with two (or multi) sided platforms in the context of such cases, looking at the other side of the platform cannot always solve the problem caused by the non-monetary nature of data.

The other side(s) of the platform may not even experience any monetary harm, which could later be passed on to consumers. Although the other side of the platform may pay higher prices for their participation on the platform, they are also likely to benefit from the abuse to some degree. For example if Facebook were to be found to abuse its dominant position with respect to consumers due to a data overcharge, it is not certain that such overcharge is problematic for the advertisers using Facebook to reach these customers. Advertisers may pay more for placing ads on Facebook following the data overcharge abuse, however, the targeting of the ads could improve giving advertisers a similar or ever better return for their price. By contrast, on a platform like Amazon an overcharge of consumer data may translate at a later stage in higher prices paid by consumers for their orders. This would allow for a more common approach to damages calculation however it requires off course proving the link between the data gathered and the prices displayed to consumers.

Accordingly, the harm caused due to data overcharges can in some cases translate to monetary damages, however, at times it may constitute solely a form on immaterial harm that is not well covered by the current legal framework. The Directive indicates that the concept of damage is not a static one and thus may evolve overtime through the case law of the Court of Justice. Although the concept of immaterial damages is an established one in EU case law, the calculation of damages for competition law infringements is done based on national legislation. Therefore, in practice the compensation in comparable scenario’s, even when feasible, will likely differ greatly among jurisdictions based on their approach to immaterial damages. If data overcharges are to fall under the scope of competition law, this outcome and uncertainty concerning immaterial damages may in practice undermine the deterrent effect such actions are intended to have in terms of enforcement. In this regard, the objective of the directive to facilitate full compensation for competition law infringement is such cases becomes rather unattainable.


The relation between competition law and data is undoubtedly full of substantive and procedural complexities that further intensify when considered in the context two or multi sided platforms. The idea of bringing data overcharges under the scope of competition law may seem appealing due to the importance of data to the competitive process in digital economy, particularly among platforms. However, the current legal framework is not entirely compatible for dealing with the non-monetary character of data. This incompatibility concerns not only the currently much debated substantive aspects of the law but also includes procedural matters that are central to the enforcement process of EU competition law. Therefore, regardless of one’s position on the idea of bringing data overcharges under the scope of EU competition law, the discussion should not ignore or underestimate the procedural implications of such a step.



Daniel Mandrescu

Blog editor

Ph.D. Fellow, Europa Institute, Leiden University

>> Daniel’s CoRe blog posts >>

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

22. Sep 2020
Features by Daniel Mandrescu
Epic, Fortnite, Apple, battle royale, competition law, antitrust, district court, monopolization, monopoly, essential facilities, refusal to supply, tying, abuse of dominance

Epic v Apple (2): market power and foreclosure in the app distribution market(s)

Epic’s battle against Apple has been extensively covered in media in the past month. This attention is undoubtedly due to Epic’s explicit move against Apple’s terms and conditions as well as Apple’s fierce reaction to cut all ties with Epic. Epic’s legal dispute is, however, not only against Apple but also against Google who has removed Epic from its Play […]
04. Sep 2020
Features by Friso Bostoen
Epic, Fortnite, Apple, battle royale, competition law, antitrust, district court, monopolization, monopoly, essential facilities, refusal to supply, tying, abuse of dominance

Epic v Apple (1): introducing antitrust’s latest Big Tech battle royale

Mid-August 2020, a series of events unfolded in a short period of time. They may prove a watershed moment for the role of antitrust in regulating digital markets. It started when gamers playing Fortnite on their iPhone were suddenly faced with a new choice screen when buying in-app currency: What changed is that Epic, the developer of Fortnite, introduced an […]
27. Aug 2020
Article 102 TFEU, Features by Daniel Mandrescu

Slack v. Microsoft – more than just another tying case

The recent wave of claims against digital giants appears to have completed a circle with Slack’s recent claim against Microsoft for allegedly abusing its dominant position by tying Microsoft Teams to the Office 365 software package. One cannot deny the resemblance between this claim and the previous tying cases Microsoft had faced, however, upon closer look Slack’s claim is much […]
09. Jun 2020
Features by Alice Rinaldi
Mobile apps image

Re-imagining the Abuse of Economic Dependence in a Digital World

As proven by the recent consultation on the Digital Services Act, the European Union is actively pursuing new solutions to cope with the challenges posed by digitalization. This post proposes a new approach to conducts taking place in the context of online commercial relationships, such as refusals to access platforms or datasets. Namely, it suggests that the European legislator should […]
28. May 2020
Features by Marios Iacovides
corona virus

Covid-19 and the transformative power of State Aid: a framework for a democratically legitimate recovery

By Julian Nowag and Marios Iacovides The coronavirus pandemic has led to major shocks to the global economy and the EU Member States, with hardly any State spared. The European Commission estimates that the EU economy will contract by 7.5 % in 2020. Unemployment is forecast to rise from 6.7% in 2019 to 9% in 2020. Within this context, the […]
19. May 2020
Features by Virgilio Pereira
Amazon logo

Amazon/Deliveroo: Dynamic Counterfactual Analysis and the Failing-Firm Defence

The economic and financial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic foreshadows an increase in the number of deals where the so-called “failing-firm defence” (“FFD”) might come under discussion, as recently demonstrated by the provisional clearance of Amazon’s investment in Deliveroo by the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”). This blogpost addresses the interplay between the FFD and dynamic counterfactual analysis, in light of the […]
14. May 2020
Features by Daniel Mandrescu
credit card swiping

Restrictions of competition by object and multi-sided platforms – insights from Budapest Bank

The judgment of the CJEU in Budapest Bank (Case C-228/18) is the most recent case that provides guidance with regard to the application of art. 101 TFEU in the context of multi-sided platforms. The CJEU explicitly confirmed the possibility of finding restrictions of competition by object by such players despite the complexities originating from their multi-sided nature. However, the manner in which […]
23. Apr 2020
Features by Friso Bostoen

Venture capital and antitrust: on exit strategies, killer acquisitions, and innovation harms

Venture capital (VC) is the primary source of financing for early-stage startups bringing their innovation to market. And a disproportionate amount of venture capital goes to startups in the tech sector. However, the last few years have seen a contraction in VC investment, particularly in potential competitors to incumbent digital platforms such as Facebook, Google and Amazon, which some interpret as […]
06. Apr 2020
Features by Rita Paukste

EURIBOR Cartel: Features of Collusion and Detection of Cartel

A colleague of mine (kudos for you know who you are) once told me that in his competition law class he has a part called “how to make a good cartel?” A thought-provoking academic exercise in many aspects, indeed. When analyzing cartels in the financial sector this popped in mind to raise other questions – how participants in cartels in […]
25. Mar 2020
Features by David van Wamel
Picture of Elevator

Otis II: A lost opportunity to clear the mist

In Otis II, the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘Court’) reaffirms that any party can claim damages for loss caused by an EU competition law infringement. More specifically, persons not active on the market affected by a cartel, but who provide subsidies to buyers of the products offered on that market, must be able to claim damages for […]

If you are interested, please use our Newletter to stay informed about our upcoming conferences, workshops, trainings and current published journals in our core areas of EU competition, data protection, substances and environmental law, as well as exciting new projects in emerging technologies and digitalisation.

Don’t miss any news and sign up for our free news alert.  Sign up now