Vertical anticompetitive cooperation

Here you will find the decisions and judgments from the Patent and Market Court and the Patent and Market Court of Appeal in competition cases as well as the decisions or summons applications made by the Swedish Competition Authority before the case went to court. You will also find information on decisions on injunctions, fine orders and commitments, as well as decisions to close a case in selected cases of a wider interest. The summaries in English cover cases concluded from 2012 onwards. Summaries of older cases are available in Swedish.


 Company/actor Swedish Competition Authority Patent and Market Court (Stockholm District Court prior to 01/09/2016) Patent and Market Court of Appeal (Market Court prior to 01/09/2016)

Decision in English


Press release

Q&A about the commitments

(Ref. 596/2013)
Commitments to end the application of parity clauses in relation to’s competitors, and in relation to the hotels’ own sales channels in respect of prices and terms not generally made available online. Previously applied parity clauses, according to which hotels were not allowed to offer’s competitors better terms than, were, in a preliminary assessment, considered to restrict competition between online travel agencies. The commitment was made subject to a conditional fine of SEK 35 million.


Make Up Store

Press release

(Ref. 402/2010)
Commitment to change the stores’ cashier system and routines regarding price-setting in order that franchisees could in practice deviate from the recommended  retail price from Make Up Store. The commitment was made subject to a conditional fine of SEK 750,000.


Decisions to close cases (selection of cases of a wider interest)

Company/actor Swedish Competition Authority

Assa Abloy

Decision in english

(Ref. 494/2013)

Expedia Inc.

Press release

(Ref. 595/2013)
After the Authority and other competition authorities within the EU initiated investigations regarding the online travel agent Expedia’s contractual terms with hotels, the company modified the application of its contractual terms as of 1 August 2015. The modifications meant, among other things, that Expedia no longer requires that the prices that hotels offer via Expedia’s online platform must be the same as or lower than the prices hotels offer on other competing online platforms. In April 2015 the Authority accepted a voluntary commitment from Expedia’s competitor to made similar modifications of its contractual terms (Ref 596/2015). Since the terms which the Authority had, in a preliminary assessment, considered to be restrictive of competition were no longer applied, the Authority decided to close the investigation into Expedia.

13:e Protein Import AB

Decision in english
Press release

(Ref. 559/2013
A producer of protein powder products applied mandatory minimum prices (retail price maintenance) towards its resellers. The Authority’s investigation showed, among other things, that the company’s market share was very limited and that there was strong competition on the market between many different producers of protein powder products, as well as strong competition between resellers. Therefore it could not be assumed that the conduct would lead to any greater damage to competition and consumers. Based on this, the Authority decided that there were not grounds to prioritise a continued investigation in the matter.

Stockholm Skavsta Flygplats AB

(Ref. 474/2009
The matter concerned an exclusive supply contract for bus transport to and from Skavsta Airport. The Authority investigated if the exclusivity risked leading to foreclosure of actual or potential competitors on the market. The investigation showed that there were competing suppliers who could offer similar transport solutions to those that were covered by the contract in question. Further, the investigation did not show that it was necessary for competing suppliers to provide transport to the airport in order to be active on the relevant market. Based on this, and considering the possibility for early termination, the Authority decided that there were not grounds to prioritise  continued investigation in the matter.

Last updated: