Gaming sector, competition law, anticompetitive practices, market opening, regulatory framework, European norms, national law, public order, consumer protection, monopolies, cartels, abuse of dominant position
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 35
Abstract
This document examines the application of competition law to the gaming sector, focusing on anticompetitive practices and regulatory levers to strengthen competition.
Extract
[...] Finally, European case law, in the cases Zeturf and Ladbrokes, supports this protective logic, admitting that Member States may restrict the free provision of services to protect consumers, provided that the measures taken are proportionate and consistent58 Thus, consumer protection in the gaming sector is not a simple complementary objective, but a central component of competitive regulation. It establishes the legitimacy of competition restrictions and justifies public intervention in a market where the general interest takes precedence over purely economic logic59. [...]
[...] 2010-4764 Law No. 2010-476 of May brought an end to the de facto monopoly exercised by Française des jeux and PMU on online games and betting, by establishing a licensing regime entrusted to the National Gaming Authority. This partial opening of the market, however, has left a dual structure in place: a competitive segment (essentially online games) and a non-competitive sector, still dominated by historic operators benefiting from exclusive rights5. Such a configuration raises questions about the real place of competition law in a sector that is still largely derogatory In fact, if the principles of competition law - prohibition of agreements (Article 101 TFEU), prohibition of abuse of dominant position (Article 102 TFEU), control of state aid - are intended to apply to all economic sectors, their implementation in the gaming sector remains limited and fragmented. [...]
[...] Strengthening international cooperation for better effectiveness One of the major axes of adaptation of competition law applied to games of chance today lies in international cooperation. In fact, in the face of the transnational nature of online gaming and the operators' strategies for implanting themselves in permissive jurisdictions, a strictly national regulation loses in effectiveness. The need to intensify exchanges between States is raised so that the fight against illicit or anti-competitive practices is not weakened by the fragmentation of legal systems. [...]
[...] The sanctions applied to dominant position abuses do not only consist of financial fines. In some cases, competition authorities impose structural or behavioral injunctions to restore a situation of fair competition. For example, the European Commission may require the separation of certain activities to prevent an operator from accumulating a dominant position on several market segments. This type of sanction could be relevant in the online gaming sector, where some historical actors still enjoy advantages related to their former monopolistic status. [...]
[...] In fact, the policies implemented can either exacerbate these imbalances or promote a more competitive environment. It is therefore crucial to examine how these public policies directly influence the market dynamics and to what extent they allow or not to restore a balance between regulation and free competition. § 2. The impact of public policies on free competition The online gaming sector is one where state intervention is particularly marked, particularly for reasons of player protection and social risk prevention. [...]
