€444m French pharma sector fine for rare collective abuse of a dominance infringement
This article is part of the September 2020 edition of our competition law newsletter, focusing on some recent key events.
The French Competition Authority ("FCA") has issued a rare decision sanctioning three laboratories active in treatment of age-related macular degeneration on the basis of collective abuse of dominance practices designed to sustain the sale of an expensive drug, Lucentis, to the detriment of a cheaper drug, Avastin.
whAT YOU NEED TO KNOW - Key takeaways |
---|
|
Background
Age-related macular degeneration ("AMD") is a disease causing severe impairment of central vision and is the main cause of low vision for people over the age of 50 in industrialised countries. During the relevant period investigated by the FCA, there were two treatments for AMD:
- Lucentis, developed by Genentech, which has a marketing authorisation for AMD treatment. Novartis had been granted a licence for Lucentis.
- Avastin, also developed by Genentech but which, despite being regularly used by doctors for the treatment of AMD, does not have a marketing authorisation for AMD treatment (only for cancer treatment). Roche has been granted a license for Avastin.
Both drugs have been recognised by specialists (primarily ophthalmologists) as effective treatments, but Lucentis is almost 30 times more expensive than Avastin.
The FCA's investigation
The FCA found that the three laboratories – Genentech, Roche and Novartis – collectively held a dominant position in the AMD market and were tied by significant close structural and strategic links:
- First, the laboratories were found to be connected through licensing agreements, which provided them with a highly-organised system of feedback, discussion forums and joint management committees.
- Second, each of Genentech, Roche and Novartis were found to have significant cross-shareholdings, as Roche was the majority shareholder in Genentech, and Novartis was also a major shareholder in Roche.
The existence of these links was found to have enabled the three laboratories to implement a common strategy based on a strong financial incentive to favour the use of Lucentis. The FCA concluded that the three firms operated as a united entity that held a collective dominant position.
The FCA considered that this collective dominant position enabled the laboratories to implement two types of anti-competitive practices:
- First, Novartis was found to have led a global communication campaign targeting ophthalmologists, doctors, associations and the general public in order to discredit the use of Avastin as a treatment for AMD in comparison to Lucentis. This had the effect of reducing the use of Avastin and preventing Avastin being used in comparative trials organised by health authorities in charge of setting the price of medical products (which may have otherwise led to a reduction in the price of Lucentis).
- Second, Novartis, Roche and Genentech were found to have initiated a series of blocking tactics and alarmist discourses in order to block initiatives undertaken by public authorities to establish a procedure for the safe use of Avastin. This had the effect of amplifying the concern of health authorities and influencing them to maintain a position of extreme prudence in relation to the use of Avastin. In doing so, the three companies ensured that Avastin would not be recognised by the French health authorities as an appropriate comparator in trials alongside Lucentis, which may have had the effect of substantially reducing its price.
On account of the gravity of the anti-competitive practices, the FCA imposed fines of €444 million on Genentech, Roche and Novartis, for both practices. The fine was calculated using 14% of the value of sales to establish the base amount of the fine, which is relatively high compared to the recent decisional practice of the FCA.
With thanks to Hélène Fricaudet of Ashurst for her contribution.
Contents
- The potential future of EU antitrust rules on vertical agreements - Commission's evaluation
- ECJ rejects power cables appeals on dawn raid powers and successor liability
- Commission fines car parts suppliers €18 million in cartel settlement
- Belgian law on abuse of economic dependence now in force
- Divestments overcome strong competition concerns with pharmaceutical merger
- HealthEngine fined $2.9m for misleading reviews and patient referrals
- France issues first ever deal block - E.Leclerc-Géant Casino local hypermarket deal
- €444m French pharma sector fine for rare collective abuse of a dominance infringement
- Italian broadcasting and audiovisual acquisitions law contrary to EU freedom of establishment principles
- JD Sports and Amazon fined for breach of UK merger control procedural rules
- CMA open letter to the weddings sector
- Enforcement action against four housing developers and advice on leasehold properties
Keep up to date
Sign up to receive the latest legal developments, insights and news from Ashurst. By signing up, you agree to receive commercial messages from us. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Sign upThe information provided is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all developments in the law and practice, or to cover all aspects of those referred to.
Readers should take legal advice before applying it to specific issues or transactions.