The Karstadt – Kaufhof merger

The two big department store chains’ plans to merge have gone through quite a bit of up-and-down over the summer. The potential merger had been criticised for several reasons, such as job losses or pay cuts for employees. While it first seemed that the merger would fall through, mainly because of financial issues the Kaufhof owner, Hudson’s Bay Company, experienced, the banks and companies gave their final ‘thumbs up’ for the merger in early September.
However, as everyone will know, a deal is not a deal until every last ‘t’ is crossed and every last ‘i’ is dotted and the one to do the last crossing and dotting in this case will most likely be the Bundeskartellamt, whose assessment and clearance of the merger is pending.
Leading up to the merger, the authority had made it clear on several occasions, that they expect the investigation of this merger to be comprehensive and difficult one (see here, in German).

Arguably the most prominent argument the two merging parties put forward in favour of their merger is their need to unite in light of pressures from online retail. In light of the parties’ focus on online- vs brick-and-mortar retail, this post will look at the very basics and discuss impact the Bundeskartellamt’s market definition regarding online- and brick-and-mortar retail will likely have on this merger.


The discussion around online- and brick-and-mortar activity has been ongoing for some time now. However, the Bundeskartellamt’s main focus in this regard has been on abuses, such as different discount- and rebate systems (see e.g. GARDENA or Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH) or ,arguably most importantly, in context of the restriction of online sales (see e.g. the ASICS case). It has to be pointed out, that in all these cases, the Bundeskartellamt’s stance was overall that brick-and mortar retail should be treated the same way as online retail.

The question of how brick-and-mortar retail and online retail compares in light of a merger investigation is a less prominent one. The Bundeskartellamt considered the issue earlier this year in the Douglas/ Parfümerie Akzente merger (case report in German here), but ultimately avoided having to make a decision on whether online- and brick-and-mortar markets should be considered as a single market, since the authority also found that the merger would be cleared even if the two markets were to be considered as separate ones.
The question of market definition with regard to online- and offline markets was somewhat addressed in the recent DocMorris/ Apo-rot merger. With regard to the merger between the mail-order pharmacies , the authority classified the mail-order pharmacies as direct competitors of stationary (i.e. brick-and-mortar) ones.


Given the sinking number of retail department store chains in Germany (see e.g. here or here, in German), there is a very good chance that the Karstadt-Kaufhof merger will be assessed as leading to market dominance if online- and brick-and-mortar retail will be considered as separate markets. Should they be considered as one market, the outcome of the Bundeskartellamt’s assessment will depend on how strongly it deems the competition online retail provides for the new undertaking to be.

Since the detailed case review or even the full analysis of DocMorris/Apo-rot is not available yet, it is difficult to try and assess whether and, if so, to what extent the arguments surrounding the differentiation between online- and brick-and-mortar retail can be applied to the Karstadt-Kaufhof merger. This assessment will also depend on how the Bundeskartellamt identifies and groups the different products the department stores have in their product range.
Thinking about substitutability of brick-and-mortar and online retail from consumer point-of-view, an interesting conundrum may (possibly) arise.

The fact that online retail is on the rise and stationary retail is on the decline has been made earlier and there is next to no debate to the accuracy of this trend. In light of that, it does not seem entirely inconceivable to suggest that consumers may even switch from brick-and-mortar- to online retail at a price increase lower than the usual 5-10%, which forms the basis of the SSNIP test. Conversely, consumers may be less likely to get off their devices and drive into town to go to a brick-and-mortar store, even if a SSNIP occurs, particularly in light of same-day or even two-hour delivery windows, as they are being offered by certain online retailers. The pictures of substitutability from each of the potential retail options to the other, one could argue, are unlikely to be exact mirrors of each other. In market definition, it might suddenly make a decisive difference which form of retail the Bundeskartellamt sees as the ‘starting point’ when it asks the question of whether consumers view another area of retail as a substitute or not. This could be particularly pivotal with regard to undertakings which are (more or less) active in both online- and brick-and-mortar retail.

These considerations would, of course, need to be further investigated and confirmed. At this point, it is worth pointing out briefly that at EU level the EU Commission has considered this matter in several cases (a comprehensive discussion of market definition with regard to online platforms in EU Law can be found here, written by one of this blog’s very own editors, Daniel Mandrescu). It will be interesting to see how much the Bundeskartellamt might consider the EU cases and arguments and how far it follows the Commission’s practice.


Given the Bundeskartellamt’s clear statement of the large scope and potential difficulties surrounding the Karstadt-Kaufhof merger, a decision is unlikely to be made and (even less so) published this year. The questions this merger poses, however, are potentially pivotal and path-breaking (or path-confirming) ones and the decision, once it has been made and published, promises to be an interesting read.

Assessing this merger provides an opportunity for Bundeskartellamt to position itself further in the online- vs brick-and-mortar retail debate and put a stronger focus of the discussion in context of a merger investigation (as opposed to the usual focus on abusive behaviour in that area).

The outcome and the authorities reasoning will be important for undertakings considering a merger, as well as for practitioners. It will be interesting to compare the market definition in DocMorris/ Apo-rot with that being adopted in the Karstadt-Kaufhof merger and to assess whether the Bundeskartellamt will follow (or even refer to) those arguments in the Karstadt-Kaufhof merger assessment. The comparison with the arguments in DocMorris/ Apro-rot demonstrates a chance for the authority to ‘set the tone’ for future mergers involving a prominent online-offline component. The authority can (on purpose or not) give an indication whether the market definition regarding online- and stationary retail is likely to follow the same argumentation in all future cases, or whether the authority is more inclined to take a case-by-case approach as to this definition.

The debate about the relevant market when online- and brick-and-mortar retail are involved also holds potential for a deeper analysis (either by the Bundeskartellamt or as an economic study), as to whether there is ‘misbalance’ in substitutability form consumers’ point-of-view between online- and brick-and-mortar retail.

Whatever the final verdict of the Bundeskartellamt on the Karstadt-Kaufhof merger ultimately is, the debate about brick-and-mortar vs online retail in merger cases is just getting started.



Anja Naumann

Blog Editor

LL.M., PhD, currently legal trainee at the Higher Regional Court of Berlin.

>> Anja’s CoRe Blog posts >>

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

27. Oct 2022
Features by Daniel Mandrescu
tv broadcasting; competition law; art. 102 TFEU; antitrust; merger control

Opinion of AG Kokott in Case-449/21 (Towercast): filling gaps in EU merger control and creating new routes for dealing with killer acquisitions through the DMA 

Earlier this month AG Kokott delivered an opinion that quickly caught the attention of the (EU) competition law community. It covered a matter which has long been left unaddressed after the introduction of EU (and national) merger control rules, namely the possibility to apply art. 102 TFEU to concentrations.  According to AG Kokott, this possibility, which has been thought to […]
26. Sep 2022
by Carlo Monegato

The modernisation of EU merger control

THE MODERNISATION OF EU MERGER CONTROL The long-awaited judgment in the Illumina/Grail art. 22 EUMR dispute was announced on 13 July 2022. The General Court confirmed that the European Commission has the power to decide on a merger, referred to it by a Member State, that does not meet the EU thresholds nor was it notified nationally. What follows is […]
26. Apr 2022
by Enrico Di Tomaso

Eventim/Ticketone v. AGCM – May acquisitions be prosecuted pursuant to Article 102 TFEU?

With judgment no. 3334 of 24 March 2022, the Rome Administrative Court of 1st instance (TAR Lazio-Roma) has annulled the decision issued by the Italian Competition Authority (“AGCM”) on 22 December 2020, no. 28495. The above TAR Lazio judgment (“the “Judgment”) is noteworthy because it deals with the possibility of AGCM (and of national competition authorities at large) to apply […]
18. Jan 2022
Features by Daniel Mandrescu
smartphone menu

The Apple App Store case in the Netherlands – a potential game changer

Just before 2021 ended, Apple suffered a loss in the Netherlands where a national court in preliminary relief proceedings struck down its attempt to block the remedies imposed by the Dutch competition authority following a finding of abuse of dominance. As a result, as of last weekend, Apple is forced to accept third-party payment solutions implemented in (paid) dating apps […]
19. Apr 2021
Features by Friso Bostoen
Article 22, Merger Regulation, European Commission, Guidance, killer acquisitions, GAFAM

The Commission’s Article 22 EUMR Guidance: catching killer acquisitions through the merger referral procedure?

Over the past five years, the EU’s merger control regime has been hotly debated. The main concern driving the debate has been the intensive acquisition activity in the tech and pharmaceutical sectors. However, many of those acquisitions escape the jurisdictional thresholds of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) and therefore cannot be reviewed by the European Commission (EC). On 26 March […]
18. Feb 2021
Features by Alexandr Svetlicinii

“Three Great Mountains” for the Chinese State-Owned Investments in the European Union

In April of 1948, Chairman Mao Zedong in his speech to a conference of political cadres mentioned the “three great mountains” that need to be overcome by the revolutionary forces: imperialism, feudalism and crony capitalism. The commentators of the current affairs argued that the current Chinese leadership is facing the “three great mountains” of pandemic containment, post-pandemic economic recovery and […]
22. Oct 2020
Features by Stefano Riela

Covid-19 and the geopolitics of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index

The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed that trade is not a free flow whose tap globalization has turned on for good: export may be restricted due to unavailability and, as in the case of import, as part of foreign policy. What emerged as a discontinuity with the globalization of the last three decades makes the assessment of a market structure more […]
12. Oct 2020
Features by Alexandr Svetlicinii

Two hats on one head: Competition authorities and FDI screening

The Regulation 2019/452 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union (EU FDI Screening Regulation) was adopted on 19 March 2019 and became fully operational on 11 October 2020. Its adoption was preceded by the heated discussion on the need to reform the EU merger control framework, which according to some stakeholders, should be able […]
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 […]
16. Jun 2020
Features by Virgilio Mouta Pereira

Hitting the mark or setting the bar too high? The “merger gap” and prospective analysis in the aftermath of CK Hutchison/Telefónica

by Miguel Marques de Carvalho and Virgílio Pereira On 28 may 2020, the General Court (“GC”) handed down a landmark judgment whereby it overturned the European Commission’s (“Commission”) decision which had prohibited the four-to-three acquisition of Telefónica UK (“O2”) by Hutchison 3G UK (“Three”). This blogpost provides an overview  of the main points raised by the ruling and offers some […]

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