Competition Commission v Retrospective Trading 200 CC t/a Seaside Pharmacy (CO020May20) [2020] ZACT 100 (14 May 2020)

Competition Commission v Retrospective Trading 200 CC t/a Seaside Pharmacy (CO020May20) [2020] ZACT 100 (14 May 2020)

The Tribunal confirmed the consent agreement between the Competition Commission and Seaside Pharmacy, finding that the respondent's pricing conduct during the national state of disaster may have contravened section 8(1)(a) of the Competition Act read with Regulation 4 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. The respondent's profit margins and mark-ups on hand sanitizers and facial masks were not justified by corresponding cost increases and were excessive in the context of the pandemic. The Tribunal accepted the remedial measures proposed, including immediate cessation of excessive pricing, reduction of profit margins to 20% or less, a donation to the Solidarity Fund, implementation of a...

Citation
[2020] ZACT 100
Parties
Applicant: Competition Commission; Respondent: Retrospective Trading 200 CC t/a Seaside Pharmacy
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 May 2020
Case Number
CO020May20
Procedural Posture
Consent Order / Confirmation of Consent Agreement
Outcome
Consent agreement confirmed as an order of the Tribunal; full and final settlement of all proceedings relating to the alleged contravention.
Judges
Y Carrim, A Ndoni, A Roskam
Legal Topics
Excessive Pricing, Covid 19 Regulations, Dominance, Consumer Protection, Gross Profit Margin, Compliance Programme
Competition Law Excessive Pricing Covid 19 Regulations Dominance Consumer Protection Gross Profit Margin Compliance Programme

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Competition Commission

Applicant

Retrospective Trading 200 CC t/a Seaside Pharmacy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consent Order / Confirmation of Consent Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Seaside Pharmacy contravened section 8(1)(a) of the Competition Act by charging excessive prices for hand sanitizers and facial masks during the national state of disaster.
  2. 2 Whether the pricing conduct was justified by corresponding cost increases or constituted excessive profit margins.
  3. 3 What remedial measures are appropriate to address the contravention and prevent future occurrences.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal confirmed the consent agreement between the Competition Commission and Seaside Pharmacy, finding that the respondent's pricing conduct during the national state of disaster may have contravened section 8(1)(a) of the Competition Act read with Regulation 4 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. The respondent's profit margins and mark-ups on hand sanitizers and facial masks were not justified by corresponding cost increases and were excessive in the context of the pandemic. The Tribunal accepted the remedial measures proposed, including immediate cessation of excessive pricing, reduction of profit margins to 20% or less, a donation to the Solidarity Fund, implementation of a...

Court Disposition

Consent agreement confirmed as an order of the Tribunal; full and final settlement of all proceedings relating to the alleged contravention.

Orders

  • Seaside Pharmacy must immediately desist from excessive pricing of hand sanitizers and facial masks.
  • Seaside Pharmacy must reduce its gross profit margin on facial masks and hand sanitizers to 20% or less for the duration of the national state of disaster.