Ref. Ares(2021)2373346 - 07/04/2021
From:
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 12:06 PM
To:
Subject: Quick notes from the Spotify meeting
I think the below captures the discussion, pls add if I missed anything.
Thanks!
Webex Meeting with Spotify - Director of EU Regulatory Affairs Views on the topic of the
Digital Markets Act
3 main topics discussed:
1. How to define gatekeepers?
Spotify remarks on general scope:
- intermediation platforms (similar to the P2B, but has to be a bit broader – not imposing the
criterion of possibility of transactions, as that would not include advertising)
- OECD definition from 2019 study is good: platforms that enable consumers and businesses
to interact with each other
Gatekeepers: those who create bottlenecks to access the market, meaning that a business
has to go through them to access the market or a large part of the market
Not essential that a particular number of companies is covered, but that companies who can
real y dictate the rules and intervene whenever they want in the market are covered.
COM question: Should there be purely quantitative criteria or an assessment by the regulator
to identify gatekeepers?
Answer: pure quantitate criteria may only capture size, not power in a certain market. So
qualitative criteria showing that a company is able to leverage its assets to a different market
would be useful.
Not enough to only define problematic practices in general without identifying gatekeepers.
So combination of quantitative and qualitative criteria would seem desirable.
Spotify question: Concern from many EU businesses that the scope could be very broad, is
there a risk of that?
COM answer: the intention is to have a narrow scope, and to support EU businesses.
2. Problematic practices?
Spotify remarks:
- Regardless of what is included in the blacklist, it is very important to have a more open
greylist, which would be updated periodical y, so that to capture new behaviours (which big
companies are likely to develop).
- Some examples of most problematic practices which should be addressed:
- Forced tying: business users being forced to use certain services in order to access
the platforms
- Self-preferencing: interfering with consumer choices, in order to favour platforms’
own product/service
- Prohibiting businesses from communicating with their customers
COM question: It may be argued that default options for consumers may be helpful, to avoid
overwhelming complexity. What are the views on that?
Answer: locking a consumer into a service, without giving them the choice to opt-in, or
overriding default settings by consumers (al to favour the platform’s own services), goes too
far. Spotify has developed a detailed list and shared it with COM in the summer.
Spotify question: is evidence stil missing on certain practices, on which Spotify could help?
COM answer: a lot of evidence already gathered, but if more needed wil reach out.
3. Link with competition law?
Spotify question: If practices are identified in the black/greylist, which would also be covered
by competition law, could competition law stil apply? Spotify would advocate it should, in
the spirit of complementarity of the rules.
COM:
- confirms the idea is indeed to complement competition law, not have mutual y exclusive
instruments.
- the relation with MS in the application of these instruments is stil to be worked out in
detail. The goal is to have a consistent approach in the Single Market.
