Confirmation of ADLC sanctions against Luxottica and Essilor

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 eyewear and optical lens sectors.

First, in a first decision n°21-D-20 of 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 limit pricing freedom certain distributors (Article 3 of Decision No.21-D-20);

• on the other hand, from the 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, when it comes to restrictions on tariff 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 deem compatible with the reputation of the brand. (paragraphs 223-224, judgment No.21/16134)

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

• Then, there was Decision No. 22-D-16 of October 6, 2022, in which the Authority had sanctioned several companies of 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, as these require very personalized support and an intuitu personaerelationship

between the customer 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 the online sales was in no way unlawful under domestic law prior to this law, as it only organized the activity of online sales in this sector, specifying the conditions for its exercise.

In conclusion, in these two judgments, the Paris Court of Appeal rigorously followed the assessment made 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