Friday, September 22nd 2023

The European Commission Re-Imposes €376.36 Million Fine on Intel for Anticompetitive Practices in the Market for Computer Chips

The European Commission has re-imposed a fine of around €376.36 million on Intel for a previously established abuse of dominant position in the market for computer chips called x86 central processing units ('CPUs'). Intel engaged in a series of anticompetitive practices aimed at excluding competitors from the relevant market in breach of EU antitrust rules.

With today's decision, we are re-imposing a €376.36 million fine on Intel for having abused its dominant position in the computer chips market. Intel paid its customers to limit, delay or cancel the sale of products containing computer chips of its main rival. This is illegal under our competition rules. Our decision shows the Commission's commitment to ensure that very serious antitrust breaches do not go unsanctioned. - Commissioner Didier Reynders, in charge of competition policy
The decision re-imposing a fine
In 2009, the Commission fined Intel €1.06 billion after finding that Intel abused its dominant position in the market for x86 CPUs. The Commission decision was based on findings that Intel had engaged in two specific forms of illegal practices by: (i) giving wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on condition that they bought all, or almost all, their x86 CPUs from Intel (so-called 'conditional rebates'); and (ii) paying computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing competitors' x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products (so-called 'naked restrictions').

In 2022, the General Court partially annulled the 2009 Commission's decision, in particular the Commission's finding related to Intel's conditional rebates practice. At the same time, the General Court confirmed that Intel's naked restrictions amounted to an abuse of dominant market position under EU competition rules. The General Court also annulled the fine imposed on Intel in its entirety after concluding that it could not establish the amount of the fine relating only to the naked restrictions.

Following this judgment, the Commission is today adopting a new decision imposing a fine on Intel only for the naked restrictions. These restrictions took place between November 2002 and December 2006 and consisted in payments made by Intel to three computer manufacturers (i.e., HP, Acer and Lenovo) to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing competitors' x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products.

Naked restrictions constitute a serious infringement of Article 102 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ('TFEU') and the Commission has therefore decided to re-impose a fine of around €376.36 million on Intel. The lower fine imposed by today's decision reflects the narrower scope of the infringement compared to the 2009 Commission decision.

This decision is without prejudice to the Commission's pending appeal against the General Court's annulment of its 2009 finding of an infringement as regards Intel's conditional rebates.

Background
Article 102 of the TFEU and Article 54 of the European Economic Area Agreement prohibit the abuse of a dominant position.

On 26 July 2007, the Commission opened proceedings and adopted a Statement of Objections against Intel. On 17 July 2008, the Commission sent a supplementary Statement of Objections and subsequently a letter outlining additional factual elements relevant to the final decision. On 13 May 2009, the Commission fined Intel €1.06 billion for abusing its dominant position in the market for x86 CPUs.

In 2014, the General Court dismissed Intel's appeal against the 2009 Commission's decision (T-286/09). In 2017, following an appeal by Intel, the Court of Justice of the European Union ('Court of Justice') annulled the 2014 General Court's judgment and referred the matter back to the General Court (C-413/14 P). In its judgment, the Court of Justice further clarified the conditions to establish when conditional rebates may amount to an infringement of EU competition rules. At the same time, it asked the General Court to review whether the conditional rebates were capable of restricting competition in view of certain economic evidence Intel had relied on before the General Court in 2014. In 2022, the General Court ruled again on the matter and annulled the part of the 2009 Commission's decision concerning the conditional rebates, but confirmed the unlawfulness of Intel's naked restrictions (T-286/09 RENV). The General Court also annulled the fine imposed on Intel in its entirety after concluding that it could not establish the amount of the fine relating only to the naked restrictions. The Commission has appealed the part of the 2022 judgment of the General Court concerning the conditional rebates before the Court of Justice (C-240/22 P). The appeal is pending.

More information will be made available under the case number AT.37990 in the public case register on the Commission's competition website once any confidentiality issues have been resolved. A Q&A on this case is available here. A periodic compilation of antitrust and cartel news is available in the Competition Weekly News Summary.
Source: The European Commiission
Add your own comment

23 Comments on The European Commission Re-Imposes €376.36 Million Fine on Intel for Anticompetitive Practices in the Market for Computer Chips

#1
R0H1T
Hopefully we'll stop having Intel fans spreading misinformation than Intel was never guilty of paying OEM's for (not) using AMD chips! Even after they'd been found guilty in multiple places/nations we've had outright lies siding with Intel :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#2
AnotherReader
R0H1THopefully we'll stop having Intel fans spreading misinformation than Intel was never guilty of paying OEM's for (not) using AMD chips! Even after they'd been found guilty in multiple places/nations we've had outright lies siding with Intel :rolleyes:
I'll never understand ordinary users who're corporate apologists. If you're being paid for it, then lying makes sense, but why lie when it's just your not so friendly multi-billion dollar corporation.
Posted on Reply
#3
Double-Click
Good. This kind of crap is straight out of a robber-baron playbook, there is no place for it.
AnotherReaderI'll never understand ordinary users who're corporate apologists. If you're being paid for it, then lying makes sense, but why lie when it's just your not so friendly multi-billion dollar corporation.
It's a nose dive of denial in response to not being able to admit fault.
You double down and live the lie(s) because it's easier to accept that than the fact you were wrong, and those who you believed in were.
Posted on Reply
#4
Daven
AnotherReaderI'll never understand ordinary users who're corporate apologists. If you're being paid for it, then lying makes sense, but why lie when it's just your not so friendly multi-billion dollar corporation.
Its like sports fans or political partisans. They need their favorite pick to do no wrong so they can win internet arguments and feel guilt free when rooting (buying) for (from) their favorite team.
Posted on Reply
#5
R-T-B
DavenIts like sports fans or political partisans. They need their favorite pick to do no wrong so they can win internet arguments and feel guilt free when rooting (buying) for (from) their favorite team.
It's not really related to any genre in particular, you can be into politics and not fall into that hole, even.

The phenemena is known as "Sunk Cost Fallacy" and can happen to anyone who doesn't reevaluate their beliefs from time to time.
Posted on Reply
#6
Prima.Vera
TheLostSwedeIntel paid its customers to limit, delay or cancel the sale of products containing computer chips of its main rival.
Real scumbag move by Intel. Honestly, the fine should be 10 fold.
Posted on Reply
#7
R-T-B
Prima.VeraReal scumbag move by Intel. Honestly, the fine should be 10 fold.
Honestly every corporate fine I've ever seen should be 10-fold, but yeah.
Posted on Reply
#8
JAB Creations
Prima.VeraReal scumbag move by Intel. Honestly, the fine should be 10 fold.
10 fold and every penny to the victims, not politicians.
Posted on Reply
#9
fevgatos
Finally.

I was so bored of amd fans repeating the nonsense that the fine was deleted as an incentive for Intel to build fabs in EU. The denial...
Posted on Reply
#10
Blaeza
That fine is like 20p or a dime to Intel. Probably less...
fevgatosFinally.

I was so bored of amd fans repeating the nonsense that the fine was deleted as an incentive for Intel to build fabs in EU. The denial...
We all know you've got a threadripper really:D
Posted on Reply
#11
AnarchoPrimitiv
Good, even though there's absolutely no way to really punish Intel and to restore their victims, because there's no way to tell just how different the present would be if Intel never bribed Dell and other OEMs...if AMD gained traction at thwt critically time....who knows, maybe we'd be at the point were AMD and Intel have a 50%/50% split in marketshare and thus the best possible market for consumers....that be nice. Or we could have avoided Intel's pre-ryzen monopoly and the complete stagnation it brought and maybe we'd be even father along than we are now....
R-T-BIt's not really related to any genre in particular, you can be into politics and not fall into that hole, even.

The phenemena is known as "Sunk Cost Fallacy" and can happen to anyone who doesn't reevaluate their beliefs from time to time.
Consumer Psychology is a scary place, but according to that school of thought,"fanboys" are desperately seeking a sense of community and belonging along with wanting to be a part of the "winning side" (thus bragging about the accomplishments of a corporation they had no part in) and this desperation causes them to seek parasocial relationships. The problem comes in when you add tribalism/factionalism to the parasocial relationship which creates an "in vs out" group dynamic and an "other" which has the tendency to be dehumanized. It gets even worse when that sense of "community" (i.e. being a fan of this or that brand) is deeply personalized, then any criticism of that brand is interpreted as a personal attack, and well....we know how that goes.
Posted on Reply
#12
kondamin
you pay 400 million fine and receive 10 billion subsidy, Justice EU sytle!
Posted on Reply
#13
mechtech
That’s only like 2 years remuneration for one employee……Pat.
Posted on Reply
#14
R-T-B
AnarchoPrimitivConsumer Psychology is a scary place, but according to that school of thought,"fanboys" are desperately seeking a sense of community and belonging along with wanting to be a part of the "winning side" (thus bragging about the accomplishments of a corporation they had no part in) and this desperation causes them to seek parasocial relationships. The problem comes in when you add tribalism/factionalism to the parasocial relationship which creates an "in vs out" group dynamic and an "other" which has the tendency to be dehumanized. It gets even worse when that sense of "community" (i.e. being a fan of this or that brand) is deeply personalized, then any criticism of that brand is interpreted as a personal attack, and well....we know how that goes.
I wasn't really commenting on "fanboyism." That's sort of a seperate issue from Sunk Cost Fallacy. Of course you can suffer from both, and some do.
Posted on Reply
#15
Quitessa
To be honest this fine will be considered "Cost of doing business" and I bet they made a LOT more profit than that in just those years, not to mention the extra they made until AMD were able to get Ryzen going
There should be a fine of 10% of corporate turnover for this sort of thing, THAT would make big business sit up and take notice
Posted on Reply
#16
phanbuey
R-T-BI wasn't really commenting on "famboyism." That's sort of a seperate issue from Sunk Cost Fallacy. Of course you can suffer from both, and some do.
I honestly think like car enthusiasts - people derive happiness from the gear... you fall in love with the hardware, and your new gear brings you so much happiness that you're hearing the people delivering it are a bunch of scumbags really takes the joy out of it.

I really think fanboyism is the brain's natural response mechanism to keep hardware dopamine levels at maximum. If they weren't hardware fanboys they would be soccer hooligans - same mechanism.
Posted on Reply
#17
R-T-B
phanbueyI honestly think like car enthusiasts - people derive happiness from the gear... you fall in love with the hardware, and your new gear brings you so much happiness that you're hearing the people delivering it are a bunch of scumbags really takes the joy out of it.

I really think fanboyism is the brain's natural response mechanism to keep hardware dopamine levels at maximum. If they weren't hardware fanboys they would be soccer hooligans - same mechanism.
I can see the sports fan similarities there yeah. Same mindset for sure, most likely for similar reasons.
Posted on Reply
#19
ymdhis
They should re-impose the original 1 billion ruling, add on 14 years of interest, and adjust it to inflation. Even then it would be too little.
Posted on Reply
#20
Minus Infinity
Check back in 5 years and find not a single cent has been paid by Intel and it's been overturned by some scumbag appeals Judge.
Posted on Reply
#21
zlobby
Fear not! Whintel will just extort more money from the poor EU taxpayer, only to open a factory there and reap all the profit for themselves.
Posted on Reply
#23
Rais
I recall when Ryzen CPU where starting to be a very decent alternative and yet basically everything was intel, even until 4000 series which was superior to intel. So this intel behaviour possibly continued well after the findings of EU commission which are relative to the Phenom/Core2 Era.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Apr 28th, 2024 08:08 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts