Oslo Economics is among the leading firms working on competition economic matters in the Nordic region. With solid expertise from academia, consulting, and industry, our internationally recognized consultants assist both private enterprises and public authorities in understanding and navigating complex regulatory landscapes.
Oslo Economics’ experience and expertice is supported by:
- Being ranked among the top 20 economic consultancies in the world by Global Competition Review;
- We have more experts recommended by Who’s Who Legal than any other economic consultancy in the Nordics;
- We have three framework agreements with DG Competition within competition and state aid
- Our experts have several publications in renowned academic journals covering topics related to competition economics and industrial organization.
Several of our team members have PhD’s in economics, long experience from competition authorities, and have worked as consultants on cases covering a wide range of sectors and industries.
Together with leading law firms, we have worked on some of the most high-profile cases in Norway, covering all aspects of competition law and regulation, in our focus areas:
- Mergers and acquisitions
- Horizontal and vertical agreements (antitrust)
- Abuse of dominance
- State aid
- Regulations
- Public procurements
- Litigation and damage estimation
Mergers and acquisition
Oslo Economics have been involved in the majority of complex merger cases handled by Norwegian Competition Authority, as well as in several mergers across the Nordic countries. Our team has also published research on the effect of mergers in renowned academic journals.
In close cooperation with leading law firms, we have an extensive experience with assisting merging parties with clearance from competition authorities. By providing clear and sound economic advice, we help facilitate a smoother and more efficient process before competition authorities. As part of our advice, we provide:
- Advice and assistance regarding the collection of information and structure of the merger filing(s)
- Independent economic analysis of the proposed merger, covering:
- Market definition
- Closeness of competition
- Quantification of efficiencies and synergies
- Evaluation of possible remedies
- Meetings with the competition authority
Our advice covers the whole transaction process.
| How we assist Telia’s acquisition of Phonero Telia’s acquisition of Phonero involved two of the three larges mobile operators in the B2B segment in Norway, and Oslo Economics aided with the merger filing before the Norwegian Competition Authority (NCA). The NCA sent out a statement of objection, based partly on their own price-press analysis of the transaction. Oslo Economics reviewed the NCA’s analysis and found both modelling errors and misunderstandings of factual evidence, resulting in an understatement of the efficiency gains. After the errors were corrected, the NCA’s model implied decreased prices following the transaction, and the NCA subsequently approved the transaction. This was the first merger that was approved in Norway based on an analysis of merger specific efficiency gains. | ||||||||
| How we assist Nordea’s acquisition of Danske Bank’s private customer portfolio Nordea’s acquisition of Danske Bank’s private customer portfolio was a merger of two of the largest banks in Norway. The NCA’s primary concerns were that the transaction would significantly lessen the competitive situation in the market for mortgages, especially through a lessening of the competition for collective agreements for union members. Oslo Economics assisted the parties with gathering of information, economic analysis, and contact with the NCA throughout the whole process. Thorough documentation, analysis and arguments contributed to the NCA’s clearance of the transaction early in phase 2. | ||||||||
Horizontal and vertical agreements (antitrust)
Cooperation and commercial agreements between firms can be beneficial for both the firms and their customers. However, such agreements could also harm competition and may, as such, be unlawful under article 101 TFEU and corresponding national legislation. The economic context surrounding such agreements is often crucial for judging whether the agreement(s) could distort competition or not. As such, economic analysis, alongside legal analysis, can provide additional insight into the legality of horizontal and vertical agreements between firms.
Together with leading law firms, we assist firms with risk assessments of proposed agreements, provide advice and analysis during investigations by competition authorities, as well as advice to firms that have been damaged by anti-competitive agreements. Cases we have worked on cover for instance:
- Hard-core cartels
- Information exchanges
- Exclusionary collusion
- Bid rigging
Our experts have been involved in almost all major investigations by the Norwegian Competition Authority, both representing firms that are being investigated, and firms seeking follow-on damages.
| How we assist Book publishers acquitted from accusation of illegal information exchange The Norwegian Competition Authority (NCA) fined the book publishers Cappelen Damm, Aschehoug, Gyldendal, and Vigmostad og Bjørke for allegedly colluding by exchanging sensitive information (future prices) on the digital platform “Bokbasen”. The NCA found that the publishers had violated section 10 of the Norwegian Competition Act, and the publishers were imposed fines totaling NOK 545 million. On behalf of three of the publishers, Oslo Economics wrote a report that analyzed how the alleged illegal information exchange could have affected the competitive process and strategic interactions between the publishers. The analysis showed that the information exchanged did not reduce the strategic uncertainty of the competitors’ future pricing – which was the NCA’s theory of harm. The case was appealed to the Competition Appeals Tribunal (“Konkurranseklagenemda”), where the publishers were exonerated, and the fines annulled. You can learn more here. | ||||||||
Abuse of dominance
Firms that can act independent of their competitors and customers could be seen to be a dominant firm, and as such, must adhere to rules regarding abuse of their dominant position. Rules against abuse of dominance are regulated in Europe through Article 102 TFEU and corresponding national laws, covering a wide range of abusive practices.
We have been involved in a wide range of cases regarding abuse of dominance, covering a wide range of practises, such as:
- Vertical foreclosure and margin squeeze
- Predatory pricing
- Lock-in
- Excessive pricing
We have advised both firms thar are under investigations for abuse of dominance, as well as firms that have been affected by abusive practices of dominant firms. We also provide guidance to firms on how to effectively compete, without breaching competition law.
In addition to investigations and fines by competition authorities, firms might also face civil litigation for follow-on damages. Quantifying fair damage estimates are often a complex task, involving a need for a solid understanding of the case, as well as economic theory and statistics. Our advice is often central to defining the level of damages, based on sound economic and econometric analysis to estimate the actual monetary damage incurred from these types of practices.
| How we assist Foodora’s use of exclusivity clauses with restaurants In 2021, the NCA opened an investigation into Foodora’s practices of using exclusivity agreements with some of their associated restaurants, as a possible abuse of dominance. Oslo Economics assisted Foodora with economic analyses during the NCA’s investigation. The key analyses were extensive market research on Foodora and their competitor’s market shares, both locally and nationally. The market research was an integral part of assessing Foodora’s position and the question of dominance. The NCA ended their investigation after Foodora committed to remedies consisting of a commitment to not use any exclusivity clauses or exclusionary conduct with associated restaurants. Learn more here. | ||||||||
State Aid
State aid rules are crucial for the workings of the internal market. The rules cover the of the use of public funds that could distort the workings of the common market, by affecting trade between the EU/EØS member states. The types of practices that could affect the common market are for example:
- Public capital injections, acquisitions, loans and/or guarantees to commercial activities on terms that are not market-based
- Divestments of public assets to commercial interests below market value
- Cross-subsidies from non-commercial activities to commercial activities undertaken by public entities
- Tax exemptions for specific sectors/markets.
Oslo Economics has worked on a large number of cases involving the state aid regulations. These cases cover e.g., questions on whether transactions involving public entities were made at a fair market rate, as well as “funding gap” analyses for state aid recipients.
In addition, Oslo Economics has also been involved in several cases representing clients seeking damages inflicted by the subsequent distortions from illegal state aid.
| How we asssist Compensation for the operation and maintenance of streetlights in Bergen were not unlawful state aid In June 2022, EFTA’s surveillance authority (ESA) concluded that the municipality of Bergen had provided unlawful state aid to the energy company Eviny, through the overcompensation for the operation and maintenance of traffic lights. On behalf of Eviny, Oslo Economics conducted an analysis of ESA’s documentation and economic analysis. Oslo Economics showed that ESA’s analysis was based on an erroneous interpretation of data and assumptions, and that their analysis did not support their conclusion. Subsequently, in March 2024, the EFTA court annulled ESA’s decision. In its judgment, the Court held that a table of figures, on which the contested decision relied to support its findings, was unreliable as evidence and unable to substantiate ESA’s conclusion. Learn more here. | ||||||||
| How we asssist Unlawful state aid to fitness center On behalf of Virke and three fitness centers in Drøbak, Oslo Economics evaluated whether the municipality of Frogn had provided unlawful state aid to the fitness center “Bølgen”, which is fully owned by the municipality. We conducted several analyses to evaluate if the investments made by Frogn municipality contained unlawful state aid. The focal point of the analyses was if the municipality would realistically be able recuperate the transfers of funds made to cover large budget shortfalls for the fitness center. In accordance with Oslo Economics’ analysis, the Court of Appeals concluded that these transfers constituted unlawful state aid. Additionally, Oslo Economics estimated the damages inflicted on the commercial fitness centers, because of lost customers to the municipality owned fitness center. Learn more here. | ||||||||
Regulations
Sector specific regulations are present in a large part of the economy, imposing limitations on the freedom of firms to operate, with the intention of achieving political goals. To achieve a political goal, sector-specific regulation will often impact effective competition. Thus, competing objectives, such as political and economic goals, need to be balanced to achieve effective regulation that improves the functioning of society at large.
Regulations where competition economic considerations need to be balanced against other political goals, are for example:
- Access regulations (e.g., telecom)
- Price- and quantity regulations (e.g., agriculture)
- Allocation of public resources (e.g., spectrum auctions)
- Taxation and fees (e.g., fishing and energy)
Oslo Economics has extensive experience advising both regulators and firms affected by regulatory changes. Our advice often consists of market studies, documenting how the proposed regulation will affect competition in the relevant sector, how well it meets its regulatory goal, and an evaluation of the overall welfare effects of the proposed regulation.
| How we assist Regulations in the grocery sector Over time, there has been a public debate regarding the level of competition in the Norwegian grocery sector. Oslo Economics has been involved in evaluations of regulations, both for private and public actors affected by changes in regulatory frameworks. In 2017, on behalf of The Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry, Oslo Economics evaluated the entry barriers for grocery stores in Norway. The evaluation found that the barriers are driven by scale in purchasing volumes, driven by a concentrated wholesale level, which stems from import restrictions and agricultural regulations. Following the evaluation, political actors proposed a number of new regulations to improve the competitive landscape in the Norwegian grocery sector. The proposed new regulations cover for instance price discrimination regulations and introduction of a new market investigation tools for the Norwegian Competition Authority. Oslo Economics has advised NorgesGruppen with several questions relating to proposed changes in the regulatory landscape, analyzing how changes would affect NorgesGruppen and the sector as a whole. | ||||||||
| How we assist Effects on competition from tax deductions In the fall of 2022, the Norwegian government proposed a resource rent tax on aquaculture, with an effective tax rate of 40 percent. The proposed tax also included a deduction of up to NOK 60 million in turnover – resulting in small actors being shielded from the resource rent tax. On behalf of Kverva (main shareholder of Salmar), Oslo Economics analyzed the effects on competition and economic efficiency that could result from the tax deduction. Our analysis showed that the deduction would skew the competition in favour of a select number of firms. In addition, the deduction would also incentivize for: an inefficient division of firms, an inefficient firm structure nationally, and a lessening of the competitiveness of the Norwegian aquaculture sector. Hence, the proposed tax is at odds with the central principles of an efficient tax system. | ||||||||
Public procurements
Public procurements, in the form of goods, services, and investments, constitute over 10 percent of Norway’s GDP. Effective competition and well-designed procurements processes are therefore crucial to secure an efficient allocation of resources and public funds.
Oslo Economics has extensive experience with analysing questions in the intersection of competition economics and public procurement, providing advice to both public and private actors. The types of questions and analyses we are involved in cover for example:
- Market studies and communication in the inception phase, providing an economic framework for an efficient design of the public procurement process
- Effects on competition and prices from the exclusion/reservation of competitors
- Analysis of the trade-offs between efficiency and competition when designing qualification and minimum criteria
- Design of tenders to facilitate an efficient competition, considering trade-offs between price, quality, and environmental considerations.
We also advise clients in relation to follow-on damages, following a breach of public procurement law. For our other work with public procurements, see our page here.
| How we assist Reservation for the public procurement of nursing homes in Oslo resulted in higher prices In 2020, Oslo municipality decided to procure nursing care homes for almost 800 patients, to be run exclusively by non-profits. As a result, commercial nursing home providers were excluded from the procurement process. In a statement from the EFTA-court, such exclusion of commercial providers would only be allowed if it were aimed at achieving economic and budgetary efficiency. On behalf of two commercial providers and their legal counsel, Oslo Economics conducted an analysis of the economic and budgetary impacts of Oslo municipality’s decision to only allow non-profit providers. We conducted an economic analysis, comparing the factual situation with a counterfactual situation where commercial providers were allowed to participate in the procurement. The analysis found for instance that the municipality in the counterfactual scenario would have received tenders for more capacity than originally tendered, which were not the fact in the factual scenario. This would have facilitated actual competition for the provision of nursing homes, which in turn would have incentivized the commercial providers to lower their prices and improve the quality of services. Subsequently, the restriction to only allow non-profit providers resulted in lower economic and budgetary efficiency. Based partially on Oslo Economics analyses, Oslo District Court found that the restrictions violated procurement law according to the EEA agreement, as the restriction could not be justified on the grounds of economic and budgetary efficiency. Oslo municipality has lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeals, rendering the judgment non-binding until further review. | ||||||||
Litigation and damage estimation
Oslo Economics’ experts provide expert witness testimonies and economics analyses, on behalf of clients involved in legal proceedings. Such testimony covers, for instance, economic damages, company- and IP valuations, effects of regulations, and other economic questions.
Our experts base their analyses on established economic theory and empirical methodology, used both to explain causal relationships and to quantify economic effects. The types of analyses include:
- Estimation of economic damages
- Valuation of financial assets
- Economic analysis of causal effects
- Defining and evaluating possible counterfactual scenarios.
Our work is often in relation to breaches of competition or procurement law, but also includes other cases, such as breach of contracts and private litigation.
| How we assist Damages following a breach of procurement law In 2022, Bodø municipality was found to have breached procurement law in the District Court and ordered to pay NOK 90 million in damages to Braathe Gruppen. The amount was set to cover the damages incurred by Braathe Gruppen, following Bodø’s breach of procurement regulation. Following Bodø municipality’s appeal, Oslo Economics was asked by their legal counsel Myhre Advokatfirma and Schjødt, to assess Braathe Gruppen’s damage estimates and provide alternative estimates. We had several objections to the methodology used by Braathe Gruppen and provided alternative estimates under more realistic assumptions. In November 2023, The Court of Appeals presented their judgment, and decided to lower the damages to NOK 45 million, in line with Oslo Economics’ estimates. For Bodø municipality, the judgment in The Court of Appeals effectively halved the amount awarded by the District Court. Learn more here. | ||||||||
