PICCIONI VIAGGIATORI


Ci eravamo illusi che Ryanair fosse un’opera di beneficienza e che ci facesse volare a basso costo per nostro divertimento e utilità. 

Le grandi low-cost avevano, e hanno, un piano ben preciso: monopolizzare rotte e scali. 

Hanno abbattuto ogni tipo di costo, anche favoriti da qualche tassa aeroportuale non pagata o scontata. 

Il miraggio dei voli a pochi euro ci ha trasformati in piccioni viaggiatori….e come piccioni viaggiamo: che gran comodità stare con le ginocchia in bocca, farsi tutte le operazioni di acquisto biglietti e check-in, fare boarding anticipati  per aspettare, in piedi, lo sbarco dei passeggeri dall’aereo mobile appena atterrato per far guadagnare, alla Compagnia, minuti preziosi ad ogni scalo.

Poi c’è quello che non vediamo, come ad esempio le ore di volo aumentate per i piloti e gli stipendi diminuiti per tutto il personale…così potranno pilotare anche i tranvieri. Continuando così, avrete ragione a battere le mani ad ogni atterraggio: una bella fortuna!

Ora si paga per imbarcare il bagaglio, domani pagheremo anche il posto a peso…i ciccioni sono avvisati! 

Si sono inventati l’algoritmo che varia i prezzi in base al numero delle prenotazioni: bassa e alta stagione a sorpresa! Un volo Milano-Catania,con bagaglio appresso, è solo un “cost” senza “low”…e non abbiamo ancora visto tutto!

Il Governo è intervenuto per fermare questo mercato-lotteria, ma penso che sarà una battaglia contro i mulini a vento.

I massicci investimenti delle compagnie low-cost, esattamente come molte  “App” per smartphone, sono programmati per ammazzare la concorrenza e dominare, poi, il mercato. Raggiunto lo scopo, non ci sarà hotel che riuscirà ad avere visibilità se non su “Booking”, come per un ristorante non affiliato a “TheFork” o per una qualsiasi azienda non presente su Amazon. 

Inizialmente, queste piattaforme, offrivano visibilità per i propri partner e comodità agli utenti…con il passare del tempo gli utenti troveranno solo i partner scelti dai proprietari della piattaforma, le “App” forzeranno le scelte e riscuoteranno il pizzo dai partner…mentre succhieranno soldi e dati dagli utenti!

Al completamento del successo delle compagnie low-cost, il mercato sarà gestito da pochi attori e, su molte tratte, in pieno oligopolio…alla faccia dell’antitrust!

La reazione volgare e boriosa dell’Amministratore Delegato di Ryanair è la prova che il Governo ha messo il dito nella piaga!

La turbo finanza e la UE stanno lanciando i loro strali a difesa della “povera” Compagnia aerea, si ribadisce il diritto di questa nello stabilirsi le regole e le tariffe-lotteria…viva il turbo liberismo!

Queste Compagnie riusciranno a conquistare il monopolio anche sui voli a lungo raggio…e saranno i padroni dei cieli.

I futuri padroni si stanno già battendo per volare con un solo pilota, senza attendere, almeno, che l’intelligenza artificiale impari a volare!

Con il diffuso ebete consenso dei piccioni viaggiatori,  verranno serviti miseri panini al prezzo del caviale, chiederanno il pizzo anche sugli acquisti al duty free e…pagheremo per fare pipì.

La quasi impotenza dei  Governi nei confronti di alcune piattaforme, che già fatturano più del PIL di molti paesi, è una triste realtà. Provate a digitare su Google la richiesta per un qualsiasi hotel a Roma o un volo per Napoli: le prime dieci offerte, come minimo, saranno quelle da “Booking” o per voli low-cost. 

Tutta una banda da “orto dei miracoli” che ha trovato nella teoria dei “volumi” (…della quantità) il modo per ingrassare…dando meno servizi, anche usufruendo di aiuti regionali e senza pagare le multe collezionate.

“L’intervento legislativo – ha spiegato il presidente dell’Antitrust – persegue un obiettivo di natura perequativa che impedisce lo sfruttamento abusivo del potere di mercato in pregiudizio di consumatori particolarmente vulnerabili”.

Romano Pisciotti 

ANTITRUST

L’Antitrust ha provveduto a comminare una sanzione pari a 760.000 euro a Tim e una di oltre 7 milioni di euro a Dazn per l’intesa che è stata raggiunta dalle due società in relazione ai diritti tv del campionato di calcio di Seria A, per periodo compreso tra il 2021 ed il 2024.

A finire sotto la lente d’ingrandimento dell’autorità era una particolare clausola prevista dall’accordo tra Dazn e Tim, che prevedeva un’esclusiva a favore di quest’ultima e il divieto di sottoscrivere delle partnership con gli altri operatori presenti nel settore delle telecomunicazioni. A seguito di un sub-procedimento cautelare avviato dall’Agcom, che è stato avviato lo scorso 6 luglio 2021, l’infrazione è durata poco più di un mese. Nel corso del mese di agosto 2021 le due società, infatti, hanno provveduto ad interrompere l’applicazione di questa particolare clausola e hanno provveduto a stipulare, con data 4 agosto 2022, un nuovo contratto.

Dal web, Romano Pisciotti

Google loses challenge against EU

Google loses challenge against EU antitrust decision, other probes loom

By Foo Yun Chee

Google suffered one of its biggest setbacks on Wednesday when a top European court upheld a ruling that it broke competition rules and fined it a record 4.1 billion euros, in a move that may encourage other regulators to ratchet up pressure on the U.S. giant.

The unit of U.S. tech giant Alphabet (GOOGL.O) had challenged an EU antitrust ruling, but the decision was broadly upheld by Europe’s General Court, with the fine trimmed modestly to 4.125 billion euros ($4.13 billion) from 4.34 billion euros.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-courts-wed-ruling-record-44-bln-google-fine-may-set-precedent-2022-09-14/

Presented by Romano Pisciotti

BIG TECH ANTITRUST

Google’s (GOOG, GOOGL) app store, Google Play, became the latest target of Big Tech antitrust regulators in a federal lawsuit filed by dozens of attorneys general led by the state of Utah.

The case, brought in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is one of dozens of lawsuits that Google’s parent company Alphabet is facing in a wave of actions around the globe challenging tiers of its dominant markets.

In the complaint, the states accuse Google of illegally operating monopolies in the market for Android app distribution by imposing technical barriers that prevent third parties from distributing apps outside the Play Store. According to the complaint, Google controls 99% of the “licensable” market.

“Android is the only viable operating system available to license by mobile device manufacturers that market and sell their devices to U.S. consumers,” the lawsuit states, noting a distinction Google has from its competitor Apple (AAPL) that is also facing antitrust scrutiny over its App Store.

The suit added: “The barriers to entry in the licensable mobile operating system market are high, and even highly resourced entrants, such as Microsoft (MSFT) and Amazon (AMZN) have failed.”

To stifle competition, the states allege, Google uses contracts to prevent original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) from circumventing the technical barriers, and to block competing app stores from distribution on the Play Store.

 

Presented by Romano Pisciotti

Europe’s antitrust warned Apple

Europe’s antitrust chief, Margrethe Vestager, warned Apple that its recent changes to privacy rules must not give preferential treatment to its apps over those of its competitors or it might be in violation of antitrust norms. Apple has framed those changes as being designed to protect users’ personal data, but that does not exempt its actions from competition rules.

This warning came in reaction to recent changes to the Cupertino-based group’s privacy policy, which led other platforms in the digital advertising market to accuse it of unduly distorting competition.

Specifically, the changes to Apple’s privacy policy will make blocking ad tracker software targeting users’ personal data the default setting on all apps sold for use on Apple devices (meaning through the Apple Store). Apple users can choose to allow ad tracking of their data, but they must actively provide consent.

 

Presented by Romano Pisciotti

MAYBE THE EUROPEAN COURT IS WAKING UP

“In its judgment in Case C-59/19 Wikingerhof the CJEU has ruled that a hotel using the platform Booking.com may, in principle, bring proceedings against Booking.com before a court of the Member State in which that hotel is established in order to bring to an end a possible abuse of a dominant position. According to the Court, in so far as such an action is based on the legal obligation to refrain from any abuse of a dominant position, it is a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of point 2 of Article 7 of Regulation No 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia).”

To learn more about this and other recent CJEU cases, join ERA’s Webinar on Latest Developments in EU Antitrust Law on 10 December 2020.

 

Presented by Romano PIsciotti

Creative destruction

How Antitrust Regulation Hinders Innovation and Competition

Few economic concepts elicit such strong reactions as that of monopoly, and the policy intended to address it—antitrust regulations (called competition policy in the European Union). Yet, both supporters and opponents of antitrust regulations agree on one fundamental point—that effective competition is vital to the American economy and the welfare of its citizens. However, they differ in how the law should encourage this. There are essentially three schools of thought regarding antitrust policy:

  1. Interventionist. Regulators should use the law proactively to break up companies that are abusing their market power and restore a competitive market. The size of a company is a good guide as to when this should be done.
  2. Consumer welfare. Abuse of market power is rare and dominant market positions can be achieved through delivering improvements in consumer welfare. Therefore, antitrust laws should be used not to break up companies that have grown big through successful competition, but to address instances of collusion, price fixing, or other anti-competitive behavior.
  3. Free market. Antitrust law is unnecessary. Market processes routinely undermine monopolies—and attempts to create monopolies. Laws against “unfair competition” prevent property owners from experimenting with joint ventures and other innovations that can improve consumer welfare.

Until recently, there was a sharp partisan divide between these schools, which can be roughly described as liberal, conservative, and libertarian, respectively. Traditionally in practice, this meant that antitrust conservatives would more often side with the libertarian camp, while leaving some room for cooperation with the liberal faction. However, the recent rise of “big tech” has led some conservatives to turn to the most interventionist approach with a zeal that threatens innovation in America’s world-leading technology industry.

The interventionist approach suffers from the same problems classical liberal economists have long identified with government interventions in markets.

First, there is the “knowledge problem”—how do regulators know better than the market what the best market structure is?

Then there are what are known as public choice considerations—regulators might exercise their powers to promote their own preferred policy positions. The very existence of those powers will lead to intense lobbying by regulated entities—both those seeking regulatory relief and those who benefit from entry barriers that limit competition from potential new entrants in a market.

The consumer welfare approach also has problems. Retaining antitrust law as an option that may be used against entrepreneurs carries the same threat to innovation posed by the interventionist approach. For instance, politicians with an animus against certain companies may pressure regulators into opposing mergers involving those companies. Regulators assessing unfair competition will not be immune from the knowledge problem and public choice effects. Entrepreneurs, eager to avoid provoking antitrust enforcement actions, will be dissuaded from pursuing innovations that might run afoul of the law.

The third approach, abolishing antitrust law, is extremely controversial. There is a widespread belief, among policy makers, the media, and the public, that without the threat of antitrust law, companies will disregard customer preferences, extract excessive profits, and kill off competitors. Yet there is no such thing as a dominant market position unless it is guaranteed by government. AOL, Borders, Blockbuster, Sears, Kodak, and many other firms once considered dominant in their markets have fallen as the result of competition, without any antitrust action.

This process of creative destruction, succinctly described by the economist Joseph Schumpeter, is a major driver of the kind of innovation that helps raise living standards. It will surely continue unless, ironically, antitrust regulators gain too much power. Were that to happen, large firms will be tempted to reach accommodations with a government that restricts their activities in exchange for not being broken up. Those accommodations will usually include protections and guarantees that act as entry barriers against potential innovative challengers. The result will be less competition, fewer innovations, and lower consumer welfare.

Creative destruction is the best answer to dominant market positions. Rather than use antitrust law aggressively, those who wish to see big companies fall quickly should instead work to end antitrust law. As for other barriers to creative destruction—for instance, financial regulations that make launching an initial public offering of stock prohibitively costly—increased competition can be achieved through deregulation in those other areas.

 

Presented by Romano Pisciotti

Antitrust law and antitrust compliance

Rechtsanwalt Dr. Rübenstahl has worked as a defense lawyer and in an advisory capacity in the areas of white collar crimes, criminal law and criminal tax law for over fifteen years. He began his career at a law firm which specialized in appeals of criminal cases at the Federal Court of Justice’s seat in Karlsruhe. He has also worked in large international law firms in Frankfurt, with an increasing focus on the areas of compliance and internal investigations. Between 2015 and 2017, he was a successful attorney and founding partner of a renowned boutique criminal-law firm specializing nationwide in medical, white collar, and criminal tax-law with offices in Cologne, Frankfurt am Main, and Berlin before founding the law office of Rübenstahl and Associates in 2018.

Rechtsanwalt Dr. Markus Rübenstahl, Mag. iur., is Co-Editor of the first edition of the book “Kartell Compliance | Prävention – Investigation – Corporate Defense – Remediation” and author of the chapter „Strafbare Submissionsabsprachen und (Submissions-)Betrug“. The handbook covers the topic of civil and criminal offences, antitrust law and antitrust compliance comprehensively. In the book you will also find chapters on antitrust compliance requirements in CH, A, F, I, E, USA, China, Russia and Brazil.

 

Presented by Romano Pisciotti

MARKET

“Market” is any area within which the meeting between supply and demand for goods and services takes place and the exchange of them through the price mechanism, determined precisely by this meeting: operators decide independently and individually their behavior, in particular, the prices and quantities of sales and purchases, such that the overall market performance, in terms of global prices and quantities, is the result of the countless decentralized decisions taken by the actors operating there and their interactions. The term “competition” can have two meanings and both presuppose the notion of market set out: one of them refers to the conduct of companies, the other to a particular structural conformation of the market. The first meaning is that which recalls rivalry, competition and struggle between companies, which implement independent behavior in order to increase their position on the market, to the detriment of rivals. The second, however, consists of the situation characterized by a large number of operators on the market, each of which offers such a small share of the same product or service that it is not able to individually influence the price level following a change in the quantity offered.

For the polysemy of the term “market” see, in particular, M.R. FERRARESE, Law and market, Turin, 1992, p. 17 ss., Which sorts the variety of meanings into four categories: a) market as place; b) market as ideology; c) market as a paradigm of social action; d) market as an institution.

Summarizes the characteristics of the market economy model: a) free market of production factors (raw materials, capital and labor); b) freedom of private economic initiative; c) organization of the private enterprise according to the principle of capital sovereignty; d) free play of competition; e) consumer sovereignty.

 

Romano Pisciotti browsing the web….about antitrust

POSTE ITALIANE sotto la lente dell’Antitrust

Le raccomandate non consegnate

L’operazione è partita dopo l’avvio dell’istruttoria “per accertare una presunta pratica commerciale scorretta, posta in essere nell’ambito del servizio di recapito della corrispondenza e, in particolare, delle raccomandate”.

Romano Pisciotti: Ho accertato personalmente questa pratica scorretta, la Magistratura dovrebbe intervenire direttamente, non solo l’antitrust.