In October of this year the European Parliament adopted a draft amendment to Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (‘Directive’). Thus, the amendment is taking place a mere 8 years from the Directive coming into force. Yet the media market has seen dramatic changes occurring over this short period of time. More and more viewers of the traditional television broadcasts are also using on-demand content on their smartphones or tablets. (more…)
GEOBLOCKING – OR THERE WILL BE PENALTIES FOR DIFFERENTIATING CUSTOMERS
The geoblocking practices (of which have already written before) involves online stores blocking potential customers or creating for them different access conditions to products. Such blocking can be based on e.g. the customer’s nationality or place of residence (e.g. on the basis of the user’s IP). In other words, the practices are used when e.g. a French citizen is trying to buy some goods from a Polish online store which refuses to sell because of his nationality. (more…)
The proposed Directive on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content (“Contract Directive”) regards B2C contracts for the supply of digital content. Digital content includes: data generated or provided in digital form (e.g. music, video), services allowing digital data to be created, processed or stored (e.g. cloud storage), services allowing data sharing (e.g. Facebook, YouTube) and any other durable media used exclusively to store digital content (e.g. DVDs). (more…)
Works are currently underway in the Sejm (lower house of the Polish parliament) on amendments to the act on the protection of competition and consumers. Managers of companies that have violated consumer law have reasons to be worried. Should the bill come into force, they will face severe penalties of even up to PLN 5 million in fines. (more…)
We wrote already about the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyrights in a single digital market (hereinafter ‘Directive’) in our July Newsletter. We discussed then the most controversial articles, i.e. Articles 11 and 13. We also said that the European Parliament rejected the draft in its initial form and therefore works on the directive were discontinued. (more…)
On 4 September of this year an amendment to the act on combating unfair competition came into force. It introduces significant changes that may be important for business owners. They include a broader definition of an unfair competition practice and a narrower definition of trade secret. Moreover, the amendment sets out justified circumstances in which actions that would otherwise be deemed unfair competition practices are actually not such. The changes to the act also concern the liability and penalties for unfair competition practices. (more…)
The changes in the Polish legislation concern the rules for collective management of copyright and related rights. The regulations, hitherto placed at the obscure end of the act on copyright and related rights, have now been incorporate into a new, extensive instrument. (more…)
Producers often wish to exercise control over the prices at which their goods are sold. However, this is inadmissible under competition law and ranks among the most serious breaches of competition law. Businesses fixing resale prices has been analysed by the European Commission in four recently issued decisions with respect to electronics manufacturers. (more…)
The holiday period, also known as silly season, brought hot news concerning long-planned reforms of copyright law. This is all the result of the forthcoming vote in the European Parliament on the proposed new directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (‘the Directive’). The statements: ‘Acta 2 is coming’, ‘The end of the Internet is near’, ‘A new tax on links’ or ‘Mems are over’ etc. are spreading all over the Internet.
Violation of competition law is usually associated with the activities of the UOKiK’s President. However, in the majority of cases the decisions made by the Office do not have a direct impact on the interests of the most injured parties, i.e. competitors, contractors or consumers. It is worth mentioning that the parties injured by anti-competitive actions – e.g. due to application of excessive prices by the cartel – can seek compensation from the participants in the collusion.