1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |European Commission Launches E-commerce Sector Inquiry

European Commission Launches E-commerce Sector Inquiry

Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.07.15

On May 6, 2015, the European Commission announced the launch of an inquiry into the e-commerce sector that will seek to identify potential antitrust concerns in European e-commerce markets. 

Scope of the Sector Inquiry

The Commission believes there are indications that private undertakings are deliberately erecting barriers—particularly contractual barriers—to cross border e-commerce, e.g., restrictions imposed by suppliers in distribution agreements. The aim of the inquiry will be to determine whether such barriers exist and whether they raise antitrust concerns. The focus will be on goods and services subject to widespread e-commerce, such as electronics, clothing, shoes and online content.

The inquiry is intended to be complementary to the Commission's Digital Single Market strategy, also adopted on May 6, which focuses on removing legislative and regulatory barriers to cross-border e-commerce.

It will sit alongside various existing Commission investigations of restrictions in licensing agreements between major U.S. film studios and European broadcasters, restrictions on online pricing and sales of electronic products, and restrictions on cross-border access to online video games. 

Next Steps

In the coming weeks, the Commission will send information requests (RFIs) to industry participants and other stakeholders throughout the EU. Addressees will include owners of content rights, broadcasters, online retailers, and suppliers of goods and services sold online.

In the course of the inquiry, the Commission may issue further requests for documents and data from companies, and in previous sector inquiries it has even carried out dawn raids.

A preliminary report on the findings of the inquiry is expected to be published for consultation mid-2016, giving interested parties the opportunity to comment. Publication of the final report is expected in the first quarter of 2017.

Why Does This Matter?

The European Commission has previously conducted sector inquiries in the energy, food, and pharmaceuticals sectors. Experience has shown that inquiries can have a major impact on the sector under investigation. 

In this case, knowledge gained may lead to legislative initiatives to boost cross-border e-commerce. Responses to RFIs and responses to the consultation will help to shape that debate.

Moreover, previous sector inquiries have triggered formal antitrust infringement investigations of individual companies.The Commission has confirmed that if it comes across anti-competitive barriers to the development of online cross border sales, it will not hesitate to take enforcement action. RFI responses will therefore need to be carefully crafted—and now may be a good time to review existing online distribution contracts and sales practices affecting the EU.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...