On 30 July 2021, Prysmian, producer of underground and submarine cables for the transmission and distribution of electricity, reached a confidential settlement agreement with Scottish and Southern Energy and other energy companies in proceedings concerning Prysmian’s involvement in the power cables cartel.[1] On the side of Prysmian, the entities involved in the settlement agreement are Prysmian Cable & Systems Limited, Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL, Prysmian S.P.A., Prysmian Construction Company Limited and Prysmian Cables (2000) Limited, and on the other side SSE PLC, Scottish and Southern Energy Power Distribution Limited, SSE Services PLC, Southern Electric Power Distribution PLC, Scottish Hydro Electric Power Distribution PLC, Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission PLC.[2]

[1] European Commission decision of 2 April 2014, Case AT.39610 (Power cables).

[2] CAT Consent order of 20 August 2021, Case Nos 1353/5/7/20 (T).

In June 2018, British Airways (“BA”) fell victim to a hack, exposing the payment details of more than 400,000 customers. In response, the UK’s data protection authority, the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) started an investigation. Since the BA hack occurred in June 2018, i.e. before the UK left the EU, the ICO investigated the data breach on behalf of all European authorities as lead supervisory authority under the GDPR. The investigation resulted in a 20 million pound fine imposed by ICO on 16 October 2020.

The ICO investigation was quickly followed by a class action suit in April 2020, which is thought to be the biggest claim for a data breach in British legal history. In July 2021, BA announced that it had reached a settlement with a number of the claimants. As the contents of the settlement agreement remain confidential, it is unclear how many of the affected claimants will receive compensation. Nevertheless, it is expected that the pay-outs amount to 2,000 pounds per claimant.[1]

[1] Information on the settlement & ICO fines British Airways £20m for data breach affecting more than 400,000 customers, 16 October 2020

On 30 September 2021, the Landgericht Munich I rendered two decisions regarding the truck cartel, as follows from an article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung of the same day.[1] In both proceedings, the same two experts were instructed to investigate whether the claims for damages totalling nearly EUR 450 million were justified. The judgments are (as yet) unpublished.

In the case of DB Competition Claims GmbH, a subsidiary of the Deutsche Bahn group, against the six truck manufacturers MAN, Daimler, Iveco, Volvo/Renault, DAF and Iveco, Deutsche Bahn sought compensation of EUR 395 million for cartel damage in respect of 39,000 trucks in 18 federal states in the period 1997 to 2019. In another case, 13 German federal states are claiming EUR 49 million due to cartel damage for purchased trucks. In Munich, more than 100 civil lawsuits are said to be pending against the truck manufacturers, involving 250,000 trucks.

Deutsche Bahn responded to the news. According to a press release, the carrier hopes that the truck manufacturers will take responsibility and reach a settlement.[2]

[1]              “Lkw-Kartellprozess: Gutachter sollen Schadenshöhe klären”, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 30 September 2021.

[2]              “Lkw-Kartell: DB erwartet zügige Schadensregulierung durch Lkw-Hersteller”, press release on the website of Deutsche Bahn, 30 September 2021.

Italy introduced new rules regarding class action lawsuits on 19 May 2021.[1] The new rules make it possible to start class actions in more areas of law, as well as expanding the opt-in system (in which it is possible to join a class after a favourable judgment), creating better opportunities for evidence (such as disclosure with fines), and encouraging settlements. To emphasise their more general scope, the new rules are now included in the Italian Code of Civil Procedure (ICPC) and no longer in the Consumer Code.

[1] Law n. 31/2019, published on 18 April 2019.

On 5 February 2021, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Cephalon brought an action before the CJEU against the European Commission to appeal the fine they received.[1] The European Commission fined the pharmaceuticals on 26 November 2020 for establishing in a patent dispute settlement agreement that Cephalon would not enter the market with a general version of the sleeping disorder medicine modafinil.[2] According to the Commission, this was a forbidden pay-for-delay agreement, a restriction of competition by object. The pharmaceutical companies seek annulment or reduction of the imposed fine.

[1] Published in the Official Journal on 22 March 2021, OJ 22 March 2021, C 98/34. Case number T-74/21.

[2] Case number AT.39686 (Cephalon).

On 10 February 2021, the European Commission adopted a decision against Aspen Pharmacare (“Aspen“).[1] In its decision, the European Commission found that Aspen started in 2012 to progressively increase, often by several hundred percent, its prices for 6 medicines which are essential to treat certain serious forms of blood cancer. After four years of investigation, the Commission came to the conclusion that Aspen was leading an excessive pricing policy for these medicines which was in breach of EU competition rules. The Commission accepted commitments by Aspen to reduce significantly the prices of these medicines for the future and reimburse the excessive prices it had charged between October 2019 and February 2021. The European Commission highlighted in its press release that all national health funds and insurance companies injured by this excessive pricing policy may obtain compensation for their damage for the period between 2012 and 2019.^[2]

[1]               Case AT.40394 – Aspen, Commitments to the European Commission.

[2]              Commission’s press release: “Antitrust: Commission accepts commitments by Aspen to reduce prices for six off-patent cancer medicines by 73% addressing excessive pricing concerns”, 10 February 2021.

It has emerged from a Competition Appeal Tribunal decision that ABB has reached a settlement in a cartel damage case instituted by the UK National Grid over the power cable cartel. The UK energy network operator’s lawsuit followed a 2014 decision by the European Commission to impose a fine on 11 cable manufacturers because they formed a global cartel for almost ten years with effect from 1999. The claim is still being pursued against Prysmian, another cable manufacturer ^[1]ABB settles National Grid’s UK antitrust suit over cable cartel.

On 2 December 2020, Deutsche Bahn announced that its subsidiary DB Barnsdale AG had reached a settlement with British Airways for their role in the air cargo cartel. ^[1]Deutsche Bahn Press release of 2 December 2020, ‘Air Freight Cartel: DB and British Airways reach out of court settlement’ Of the 11 defendant airlines from which it was seeking damages, this constitutes the seventh settlement reached by Deutsche Bahn. The amount of the settlement has not been disclosed.

On 14 October 2020, Deutsche Bahn AG (DB) published a press release stating that it had reached a settlement with ThyssenKrupp GfT Gleistechnik GmbH and ThyssenKrupp Materials Services GmbH on damages for (possible) cartel agreements in the “private market rail cartel”. ^[1]‘DB schließt Vergleich mit thussenkrupp zu Schadenersatz beim Schinenkartell‘, 14 October 2020, Deutsche Bahn’s website. The background to the settlement is a fine imposed in 2013 by the German competition authority, the Bundeskartellamt, on DB and various construction companies that carried out infrastructure projects for DB. ThyssenKrupp supplied, among other things, the materials for those projects. The details of the settlement have not been disclosed.