de.euronews.com
EU Fines Delivery Hero and Glovo €329 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
The European Commission imposed a €329 million fine on Delivery Hero and Glovo for anti-competitive practices, including market allocation and no-poaching agreements, facilitated by Delivery Hero's minority stake in Glovo from July 2018 to July 2022.
- What are the key anti-competitive practices engaged in by Delivery Hero and Glovo, and what is the significance of the EU's response?
- The European Commission fined Delivery Hero and Glovo €329 million for anti-competitive practices, marking the first time the EU sanctioned the misuse of a minority stake to restrict competition. The companies colluded on market allocation and no-poaching agreements, limiting competition and worker mobility.
- How did Delivery Hero's minority stake in Glovo facilitate the anti-competitive behavior, and what specific information was exchanged?
- Delivery Hero's minority stake in Glovo facilitated information exchange about pricing, market strategies, and workforce, allowing them to coordinate actions and reduce competition from 2018-2022. This led to market allocation and no-poaching agreements, harming both consumers and workers.
- What are the broader implications of this case for future antitrust enforcement, particularly concerning minority stakes and labor market practices?
- This case sets a precedent for future antitrust enforcement, highlighting the EU's commitment to scrutinize minority stakes for anti-competitive behavior and the impact on labor markets. The Commission's focus on no-poaching agreements signals a broader effort to ensure fair competition in the labor market.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the case as a clear victory for the European Commission in its fight against anti-competitive practices. The headline and introduction emphasize the significant fines imposed and the precedent set, potentially overshadowing the complexities of the case and the companies' perspective. The focus on the Commission's statements reinforces this framing.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral and objective, reporting the facts of the case and quoting directly from official sources. However, phrases like "manipulated online ordering" and "effectively eliminated direct competition" could be seen as slightly loaded. More neutral alternatives would be "influenced online ordering" and "significantly reduced direct competition".
Bias by Omission
The article focuses primarily on the actions and statements of the European Commission and the involved companies. While it mentions the impact on employees, a deeper exploration of employee perspectives and experiences would enrich the analysis. The impact on consumers through pricing and service quality is also largely omitted, limiting a complete understanding of the case's consequences.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't explicitly present false dichotomies, but it might implicitly frame the situation as a clear-cut case of wrongdoing by the companies, without fully exploring the complexities or potential justifications for their actions from a business perspective. The nuances of minority shareholding and its legitimate uses are touched upon, but not extensively analyzed.
Sustainable Development Goals
The cartel between Delivery Hero and Glovo involved agreements not to hire or poach each other's employees, restricting employment opportunities and potentially suppressing wages. This directly impacts SDG 8 which aims for sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.