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

The evidence in the present case consistently and overwhelmingly supports a finding that MGA was dominant in relation to the supply of LOL Surprise. MGA’s market share was, during the relevant period for assessment, in a range indicative of dominance or even a presumption of dominance, both on Mr Colley’s market and by reference to a slightly wider market to include all collectible toys targeted at girls aged 6–9 years, with at least a single element of surprise. While barriers to entry in the market were not intrinsically high, the timescale for product development was such that there was no realistic possibility of serious competition to LOL Surprise emerging quickly enough to constrain MGA during the relevant period in 2017; nor was there evidence of a constraint arising from the potential for repackaging existing products. In addition, the “must-stock” nature of the product and the conditions of scarcity of supply of LOL Surprise reduced the potential for any countervailing buyer power, leading to a situation where MGA was able to act with complete disregard for the wishes of its major customers.The conclusion that MGA was dominant is, on the facts of this case, inescapable.