Qualcomm spars with EU antitrust regulators over Huawei, ZTE rebates
Qualcomm (QCOM.O) on Tuesday criticised European Union antitrust regulators over their definition of rebates given to Chinese phone makers Huawei and ZTE in the second day of a court hearing aimed at overturning a 242-million-euro ($259 million) fine.
The U.S. chipmaker is pleading its case in the General Court, Europe's second-highest, after winning its fight to overturn a 997-million-euro EU antitrust fine in another case there last year
The European Commission handed Qualcomm the fine in 2019, alleging it had engaged in predatory pricing by selling its chipsets for mobile internet dongles at below cost between 2009 and 2011 to thwart British phone software maker Icera, now part of Nvidia Corp (NVDA.O).
The EU competition enforcer said an analysis of Qualcomm's prices showed it sold some of its chips below cost to Huawei (HWT.UL) and ZTE (000063.SZ), with rebates and discounts driving the final prices down.
Qualcomm's lawyer rebuffed the analysis on the second day of a three-day hearing.
"The Commission should have applied the price cost test over a longer, more meaningful period. Had the Commission made those two simple corrections, you would have found no predation," Athina Kontasakou told the court.
She said the Commission was wrong to treat annual lump-sum payments made by Qualcomm to customers as hidden discounts and rebate payments.
Martin Farley, a lawyer for the Commission, defended its analysis of Qualcomm's prices as "fundamentally correct and robust".
"All of the decisions that the Commission took in exercise of its discretion to calculate the costs were done to ensure that they reflected reality," he told judges.
The court will rule in the coming months. The case is T-671/19 Qualcomm v Commission.
($1 = 0.9341 euros)
The European Commission handed Qualcomm the fine in 2019, alleging it had engaged in predatory pricing by selling its chipsets for mobile internet dongles at below cost between 2009 and 2011 to thwart British phone software maker Icera, now part of Nvidia Corp (NVDA.O).
The EU competition enforcer said an analysis of Qualcomm's prices showed it sold some of its chips below cost to Huawei (HWT.UL) and ZTE (000063.SZ), with rebates and discounts driving the final prices down.
Qualcomm's lawyer rebuffed the analysis on the second day of a three-day hearing.
"The Commission should have applied the price cost test over a longer, more meaningful period. Had the Commission made those two simple corrections, you would have found no predation," Athina Kontasakou told the court.
She said the Commission was wrong to treat annual lump-sum payments made by Qualcomm to customers as hidden discounts and rebate payments.
Martin Farley, a lawyer for the Commission, defended its analysis of Qualcomm's prices as "fundamentally correct and robust".
"All of the decisions that the Commission took in exercise of its discretion to calculate the costs were done to ensure that they reflected reality," he told judges.
The court will rule in the coming months. The case is T-671/19 Qualcomm v Commission.
($1 = 0.9341 euros)
AI Disclaimer: An advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system generated the content of this page on its own. This innovative technology conducts extensive research from a variety of reliable sources, performs rigorous fact-checking and verification, cleans up and balances biased or manipulated content, and presents a minimal factual summary that is just enough yet essential for you to function as an informed and educated citizen. Please keep in mind, however, that this system is an evolving technology, and as a result, the article may contain accidental inaccuracies or errors. We urge you to help us improve our site by reporting any inaccuracies you find using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page. Your helpful feedback helps us improve our system and deliver more precise content. When you find an article of interest here, please look for the full and extensive coverage of this topic in traditional news sources, as they are written by professional journalists that we try to support, not replace. We appreciate your understanding and assistance.
