Client updates /  Antitrust

This is not the first time the Israel Competition Authority has imposed sanctions on companies that fail to respond adequately to its demands for data. However, this is the highest sum ever imposed for such a violation and approaches the maximum the ICA’s Director General may impose in this regard.

The Israeli Competition Director General fined MBI and company officers after they spiked the price of a life-saving drug called Leadiant by hundreds of percentage points.

Israeli district courts have already recognized the possibility of suing a monopoly for charging an unfair excessive price, but the Israeli Supreme Court’s recognition of this cause of action ends defendants’ potential arguments for opposing this very possibility.

The new format heralds a reduction in the volume of transactions that require reporting. However, it imposes a far heavier burden on parties to transactions that do require reporting, even for mergers posing no competitive concerns.

In December 2021, the Jerusalem District Court dismissed two motions to certify a class action against the leading dairy manufacturer in Israel, Tnuva, for charging excessive prices. Both the motion and the dismissal are part of an intense dispute for years. The dispute revolves around whether the prohibition of a monopolist charging an “unfair” price applies to charging excessive fees. In 2014, the director-general of the Competition Authority published a public statement on the prohibition of excessive pricing by a monopoly.

Six months after the amendment to the Economic Competition Law took effect, the Competition Authority published its position regarding the circumstances in which even an entity with less than a 50% market share may be deemed a “monopoly holder.”

On January 1, 2019, Israel’s parliament approved an amendment to the Restrictive Trade Practices Law. This amendment seeks to deepen and focus the Antitrust Authority’s efforts to prevent activities posing potential harm to competition and to the public.