HP-2020-000016 - [2025] EWHC 1451 (Ch)

Cabo submitted that the agreements were anticompetitive by object, on the basis that their entire purpose was to exclude Cabo from the market. In the alternative, Cabo argued that the agreements had an anticompetitive effect. MGA submitted that Cabo had failed to prove that the agreements were restrictive either by object or effect, on the basis that the agreements did not fall within the category of object restrictions, and had no appreciable effect on competition in circumstances where the agreements were vertical in nature, and concerned only a single competing product for which there were other routes to market. MGA also relied on its argument that in Worldeez would have failed in any event in the counterfactual case.