Prohibited Practices: Agreement on tyre prices - Cartel Office imposes fines
Against them could be appealed, then the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf decide
- Center-left3
- Center-right1
3 agency rewrites / co-publications detected
Summary
Against them could be appealed, then the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf decide. The Federal Cartel Office is consistently pursuing these practices, which have been banned since the early 1970s. According to Mundt, “margin guarantee agreements” violate antitrust law “if they contain – as here – requirements for the retail prices of dealers and thus restrict their pricing freedom”. Practices since the beginning of the 1970s banned cartel office President Andreas Mundt said, "vertical price fixing is regularly at the expense of consumers".
Furthermore, As regards the amount of the fine, it was alleged that Maxxis and B4T Berlin had cooperated with the Bundeskartellamt in clarifying the facts. B4T Berlin and Reifen Müller are tire wholesalers. Maxxis and Reifen Müller have therefore agreed to an amicable termination of the procedure.
Cross-referenced from 4 sources.
Factual coreconfirmed by several independent voices
Against them could be appealed, then the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf decide.
reliability low1/3 sourcesThe Federal Cartel Office is consistently pursuing these practices, which have been banned since the early 1970s. According to Mundt, “margin guarantee agreements” violate antitrust law “if they contain – as here – requirements for the retail prices of dealers and thus restrict their pricing freedom”.
reliability low1/3 sourcesPractices since the beginning of the 1970s banned cartel office President Andreas Mundt said, "vertical price fixing is regularly at the expense of consumers".
reliability low1/3 sourcesAs regards the amount of the fine, it was alleged that Maxxis and B4T Berlin had cooperated with the Bundeskartellamt in clarifying the facts.
reliability low1/3 sourcesB4T Berlin and Reifen Müller are tire wholesalers.
reliability low1/3 sourcesMaxxis and Reifen Müller have therefore agreed to an amicable termination of the procedure.
reliability low1/3 sources
Disputedincompatible versions — to verify
No factual contradiction detected between sources.
Framing by sidesame fact, different words — loaded terms highlighted
No notable framing divergence.
Blind spotwhat one side keeps silent
No blind spot detected: every side covers the same facts.
Sources4 sources cross-checked
Center-left3
Center-right1
