Confirmation of ADLC sanctions against Luxottica and Essilor

On December 12, 2024, the Paris Court of Appeal had the opportunity to review two decisions rendered by the Competition Authority relating to practices implemented in the glasses and optical lenses sectors. 

First of all, in a first decision No.21-D-20of 22 July 2021, the Authority had sanctioned several companies of the Luxottica group, in particular for having implemented:
 

• On the one hand, a practice aimed at limiting the pricing freedom of certain distributors (Article 3 of Decision No.21-D-20);
   

on the

• other hand, cartel practices aimed at prohibiting the online marketing of glasses to its authorized retailers for several brands (Article 8 of Decision No.21-D-20).
   

The Luxottica companies appealed this decision, but the Paris Court of Appeal rejected all their claims.  

Indeed, with regard to restrictions on pricing freedom, Luxottica defended itself by stating in particular that its interventions were only aimed at prohibiting discounts or promotions that could harm the image of brands.  

The Paris Court of Appeal does not follow this argument, and considers that the combination of the dissemination of recommended prices and the control of all commercial promotion operations contribute to the same objective of maintaining sales prices at a certain level that Luxottica would consider compatible with the reputation of the brand. (paragraphs 223-224, judgment No.21/16134)

 However, for the Court, to recognize such a possibility for a luxury brand supplier would be to allow it to set minimum resale prices to distributors.

• Then, there was Decision No. 22-D-16 of October 6, 2022, in which ARCEP sanctioned several companies in the Essilor group for having, between 2009 and 2020, abused their dominant position by implementing a discriminatory commercial policy, aimed at hindering the development in France of websites offering a fully online eyewear offer.
   

The convicted companies had also appealed this decision and all their pleas were rejected by the Paris Court of Appeal.  

The Court nevertheless accepts that it is necessary to distinguish people with so-called “complex” vision disorders from others, because these require very personalized support and an intuitu personae relationship between the client and the optician, which pure-players cannot offer unlike hard opticians. (paragraph 261 et seq., judgment No.22/19114)

 For the rest of the optical services, the Court considers that there is no evidence that pure-players cannot offer a similar offer to hard opticians and confirms the classification of discriminatory practice against Essilor companies. 

Regarding the study of the seriousness of the practices, the sanctioned companies considered that the right was not established on this subject before the entry into force of the Hamon law of 2014, which, according to them, established a right to sell corrective lenses online. 

Argument rejected by the Paris Court of Appeal which notes that online sales were in no way illegal under domestic law prior to this law, the latter having only organized the online sales activity in this sector by specifying the conditions for its exercise. 

In conclusion, in these two judgments, the Paris Court of Appeal rigorously followed the assessment adopted by the Competition Authority and rejected in full the pleas of the sanctioned parties. Paris  Court of Appeal, Division 5, Chamber 7, 12 December 2024, No.21/16134

 Paris Court of Appeal, Division 5, Chamber 7, 12 December 2024, No.22/19114