CELEX: 32020M9559
Language: en
Date: 2020-02-19 00:00:00
Title: Commission Decision of 19/02/2020 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.9559 - TELEFONICA / PROSEGUR / PROSEGUR ALARMAS ESPAÑA) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
                                                                Brussels, 19.2.2020
                                                                C(2020) 1087 final
                                                                                 PUBLIC VERSION
                                                                 In the published version of this decision,
                                                                 some information has been omitted
                                                                 pursuant to Article 17(2) of Council
                                                                 Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 concerning
                                                                 non-disclosure of business secrets and other
                                                                 confidential information. The omissions are
                                                                 shown thus […]. Where possible the
                                                                 information omitted has been replaced by
                                                                 ranges of figures or a general description.
                                                                To the notifying parties
Subject:            Case M.9559 – Telefónica/Prosegur/Prosegur Alarmas España
                    Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation
                    No 139/20041 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic
                    Area2
Dear Sir or Madam,
(1)       On 15 January 2020, the European Commission received notification of a proposed
          concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which Telefónica
          EF S.A. ("TEF", Spain) and Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad, S.A. ("PCS", Spain)
          (together the “Notifying Parties”) will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b)
          and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control over Prosegur Alarmas España,
          S.L.U. ("Prosegur Alarmas" or the "JV", Spain) (together with TEF and PCS, the
          “Parties”). Prosegur Alarmas currently belongs to the group of PCS.3
(2)       The concentration had already been notified to the Commission on 27 November
          2019, but was subsequently withdrawn on 20 December 2019.
1    OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the “Merger Regulation”). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the
     Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of
     “Community” by “Union” and “common market” by “internal market”. The terminology of the TFEU will
     be used throughout this decision.
2    OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 (the “EEA Agreement”).
3    Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 23, 23.01.2020, p. 14.
Commission européenne, DG COMP MERGER REGISTRY, 1049 Bruxelles, BELGIQUE
Europese Commissie, DG COMP MERGER REGISTRY, 1049 Brussel, BELGIË
Tel: +32 229-91111. Fax: +32 229-64301. E-mail: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.     THE PARTIES
(3)    TEF is a global telecommunications operator and mobile network provider,
       operating under a number of brands, including Movistar, O2 and Vivo. TEF is a
       100% publicly owned company listed on the Madrid, New York, Lima and Buenos
       Aires Stock Exchanges. In Spain, TEF mainly provides fixed and mobile
       telecommunication services, including machine-to-machine (“M2M”) SIM cards. It
       is also marginally active in the provision of security systems. Through its subsidiary
       Telefónica Ingeniería de Seguridad S.A.U. (“TIS”), TEF sells “Vivo Smart
       Security”, which is an alarm service mainly for small and medium-sized enterprises
       (“SMEs”).
(4)    PCS is a provider of security systems to business customers, whose operations are
       divided in three business lines, namely alarms, security, and cash. The alarms
       business line offers (i) the installation and maintenance services to residential and
       SME customers; (ii) alarm monitoring by alarm reception centres services; and, (iii)
       alarm response services through immediate intervention and key holding services.
       The security business line provides comprehensive security systems, based on a
       combination of manned guarding and technological and analytical capabilities. The
       cash business line provides a range of services from basic valuables logistics and
       cash management to added-value outsourced services from financial institutions,
       retail establishments, government agencies, central banks, mints, jewellers and
       others.
(5)    Prosegur Alarmas is a provider of alarm installation services and connection to alarm
       reception centres for both residential and SME customers in Spain.
2.     THE CONCENTRATION
(6)    Pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement signed on 17 September 2019, TEF and
       PCS will each own 50% of the stock in Prosegur Alarmas.
(7)    After the concentration, under the Shareholders Agreement signed on 17 September
       2019, […]. The board will be responsible for the operational and financial strategy of
       the JV. A board meeting will only be validly constituted […]. Furthermore, key
       decisions of the board, including the approval of the annual budget and of the
       business plan, will require the vote of at least one board member appointed by TEF
       and one board member appointed by PCS. As a result, both TEF and PCS will
       effectively have a veto right over such key decisions. Prosegur Alarmas will
       therefore be jointly controlled by TEF and PCS within the meaning of Article
       3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.4
(8)    The JV has sufficient own staff, financial resources and dedicated management for
       its operation and for the management of its portfolio and business interests.
       Furthermore, the JV will continue to have a market presence, does not have
       significant sale or purchase relationships with its parents and is intended to operate
       on a lasting basis. Therefore, the JV is full functional.
4   Form CO, paragraph 53.
                                                   2
 ---pagebreak--- (9)     Therefore, the Transaction consists of the acquisition of joint control by TEF and
        PCS over Prosegur Alarmas within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the
        Merger Regulation.
3.      UNION DIMENSION
(10)    The undertakings concerned have a combined aggregate worldwide turnover of more
        than EUR 5 000 million (TEF: EUR 48 693 million, PCS: 3 939.2 million).5 Each of
        them has an EU-wide turnover in excess of EUR 250 million (TEF: EUR 26 816
        million, PCS: 1 739.9 million), but they do not achieve more than two-thirds of their
        aggregate EU-wide turnover within one and the same Member State.
(11)    The Transaction therefore has an Union dimension pursuant to Article 1(2) of the
        Merger Regulation.
4.      RELEVANT MARKETS
4.1.    Introduction
(12)    The Parties are both active in the market for security systems in Spain. PCS supplies
        the full spectrum of security systems to business customers. Prosegur Alarmas is
        active in the alarm installation and maintenance market as well as in the alarm
        monitoring and response market for both residential and SME customers whereas
        TEF, which is active through its subsidiary TIS, mainly supplies such services to
        SME customers.
(13)    TEF’s main business focus is the retail supply of several telecommunications and
        TV services in Spain.
4.2.    Market for security systems
4.2.1. Product market definition
4.2.1.1. Commission precedents
(14)    In prior decisions, the Commission made a distinction, within the market for security
        systems, between (i) manned guarding services; (ii) alarm installation and
        maintenance (i.e. electronic guarding equipment); and (iii) alarm monitoring and
        response.6 Hereafter, segments (ii) and (iii) will be referred to as “alarm services”.
(15)    Prosegur Alarmas and TEF, via its subsidiary TIS, are active in the supply of alarm
        services7, while they do not offer manned guarding services as PCS does. While
        Prosegur Alarms mainly supplies alarm services to residential and SME customers,
        TEF mainly supplies SME customers. Accordingly, the Transaction only concerns
        the markets for alarms services and not the wider market for security systems.
5   Turnover calculated in accordance with Article 5 of the Merger Regulation.
6   Commission decision of 2 August 2011 in case M.6292 – Securitas/Niscayah Group, paragraph 8.
7   TIS directly provides alarm installation and maintenance and provides its alarm monitoring and response
    through Ralset’s alarm receiving centre.
                                                          3
 ---pagebreak--- (16)    Alarm installation and maintenance services consist in the installation and
        maintenance of alarm systems such as management of access control, fire, gas and/or
        flood alarm systems or systems based on video surveillance and telecare services.8
(17)    Alarm monitoring and response services consist in receiving electronic data in an
        alarm receiving centre (“ARC”) connected to a site of a customers, and reacting to
        abnormal events detected by the alarm system of the site. The action to be taken by
        the provider of alarm monitoring services when an abnormal event is detected can
        either be (i) a phone call to the customer, to the police or another security company;
        or, (ii) an “outside response”, which involves sending staff on-site.9 In previous
        decisions, the Commission considered whether alarm monitoring and alarm response
        could belong to distinct market, but left the exact product market definition open.10
(18)    The Commission has previously considered that alarm installation and maintenance
        and alarm monitoring and response could each be further divided into two sub-
        segments depending on the type of customers, i.e. residential and business
        customers, although it ultimately left the market definition open.11
4.2.1.2. The Notifying Parties’ view
(19)    The Notifying Parties submit that there is a single overall market including all
        security systems or, at least, including all alarms services, but that the relevant
        product market can be left open.12 The Notifying Parties’ view is based on a
        precedent from the Spanish National Competition Authority (“CNMC”) where the
        CNMC retained a broader market definition covering all alarm services.13
(20)    The Notifying Parties submit that so-called “Peace of Mind” solutions, which
        include electronic device-based security systems without connection to an ARC,
        should also be included into an overall market for security systems.14 Notably, the
        Notifying Parties identify a high degree of demand-side and supply-side
        substitutability. As regards the demand side, the Notifying Parties consider that
        Peace of Mind solutions cover the same need, i.e., detecting any abnormal event on
        the customer’s premise. The main difference is that Peace of Mind services are
        cheaper as customers “self-install” and “self-monitor” the solution with no technical
        support from professionals and as they have no connection to an ARC. However,
        they could always be upgraded to a professional alarm monitoring system at a later
        stage. As regards the supply side, the Notifying Parties submit that the underlying
        hardware and software for the supply of Peace of Mind solutions are very similar to
8   Commission decision of 2 August 2011 in case M.6292 – Securitas/Niscayah Group, paragraph 13.
9   Commission decision of 2 August 2011 in case M.6292 – Securitas/Niscayah Group, paragraph 9.
10  Commission decisions of 2 August 2011 in case M.6292 – Securitas/Niscayah Group, paragraph 10; of 9
    November 2010 in case M.5993 – Securitas/Reliance Security Services/Reliance Security Services
    Scotland, paragraphs 15-17.
11  Commission decisions of 2 August 2011 in case M.6292 – Securitas/Niscayah Group, paragraph 15; of 31
    January 2008 in case M.4986 – EQT V/Securitas Direct, paragraphs 12-14.
12  Form CO, paragraph 142.
13  CNMC decision of 15 October 2015 in case C/0697/15 – Securitas Direct/Segur Control, paragraphs 27-
    30 and 33.
14  Notifying Parties’ reply to RFI 10 of 5 February 2020, question 12.
                                                          4
 ---pagebreak---          those necessary for professional monitoring, albeit rendering a certification of the
         installation impossible as the alarm system would not be connected to an ARC.15
4.2.1.3. The Commission’s assessment
(21)     The results of the market investigation conducted in the present case generally
         confirmed the market definition derived from the Commission’s past decisional
         practice. A majority of respondents agree that the market for security systems can be
         segmented between (i) manned guarding services; (ii) alarm installation and
         maintenance (i.e. electronic guarding equipment); and (iii) alarm monitoring and
         response services.16
(22)     However, the Commission also takes note of the evidence from the CNMC’s
         precedent which followed the argument of the parties to that case that alarm
         installation and maintenance services are usually sold in conjunction with alarm
         monitoring and response services in Spain.17 Moreover, according to the Notifying
         Parties, all the main players in the alarm systems market in Spain offer installation
         and maintenance services together with alarm monitoring and response services and
         it is difficult from a customer perspective to identify in those offers the possibility of
         acquiring one service separate from the other.18
(23)     A majority of respondents to the market investigation further confirmed that the
         market for alarm services could be segmented by type of customers, i.e.
         distinguishing between residential and business customers.19
(24)     Peace of Mind solutions have different product characteristics and functionalities
         compared to traditional alarm services. In particular, they require self-installation
         and self-monitoring by the customer with no technical support from professionals.
         One respondent to the market investigation stressed that they exert competitive
         pressure on alarm services, without reaching a conclusion as to whether these
         services constitute a separate product market distinct from the market for alarm
         services.20 The Commission concludes that, for the purpose of this decision, Peace of
         Mind solutions do not form part of the market for security systems, even though they
         exert some competitive constraint on alarm services.
(25)     With regard to the other above-mentioned segmentations, namely between (i)
         manned guarding services; (ii) alarm installation and maintenance (i.e. electronic
         guarding equipment); and (iii) alarm monitoring and response services and, for (ii)
         and (iii), a further potential sub-segmentation between residential and business
         customers, the Commission considers that, in any event, for the purposes of this
         decision, the exact product market definition with regard to the market for security
15  The provision of professional alarm services is subject to country specific regulations and to an
    administrative authorization in Spain (Form CO, paragraphs 80-84).
16  Replies to questionnaire Q2 to alarm services providers, questions 4 and 4.1; Replies to questionnaire Q1
    to telecommunications operators, questions 4 and 4.1.
17  CNMC decision of 15 October 2015 in case C/0697/15 – Securitas Direct/Segur Control, paragraphs 29
    and 33.
18  Notifying Parties’ reply to RFI 10 of 5 February 2020, question 12.
19  Replies to questionnaire Q2 to alarm services providers, questions 5 and 5.1; Replies to questionnaire Q1
    to telecommunications operators, questions 5 and 5.1.
20  Replies to questionnaire Q1 to telecommunications operators, questions 2.1, 4.1 and 23.1.
                                                          5
 ---pagebreak---          systems can be left open, as the Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its
         compatibility with the internal market or the functioning of the EEA Agreement
         under any plausible product market definition.
4.2.2. Geographic market definition
4.2.2.1. Commission precedents
(26)     In its previous decisions, the Commission concluded that the market for security
         systems, under any plausible segmentation, is national in scope due to the existence
         of specific national regulations and standards, language differences and national
         preferences derived from the reputation of each of the players at the national level. 21
4.2.2.2. The Notifying Parties’ view
(27)     The Notifying Parties submit that, in accordance with the Commission’s practice, the
         geographic market is national in scope.22
4.2.2.3. The Commission’s assessment
(28)     All respondents to the market investigation conducted in the present case supported
         the market definition derived from the Commission’s past decisional practice.23
(29)     For the purpose of this decision, the Commission concludes that the market for
         security systems, including any plausible segmentation thereof, is national in scope.
4.3.     Telecommunication markets
4.3.1. Retail supply of mobile telecommunication services
(30)     Mobile telecommunication services to end customers include services for national
         and international voice calls, SMS (including MMS and other messages), mobile
         internet with data services, and retail international roaming services.24
(31)     A segment of the market for retail mobile telecommunications services includes
         machine-to-machine (“M2M”) subscriptions. These allow machines, devices,
         appliances, etc., to connect wirelessly to the internet via mobile networks, or other
         technologies, permitting the transmission and receipt of data to a central server.25
         M2M services are received through specific data-only M2M (SIM) cards, used for
         communication between machines (for instance, between different devices of an
         alarm system) and are mainly supplied to business customers.
21  Commission decisions of 2 August 2011 in case M.6292 – Securitas/Niscayah Group, paragraphs 16-18;
    of 9 November 2010 in case M.5993 – Securitas/Relience Security Services/Reliance Security Services
    Scotland, paragraph 24; of 31 January 2008 in case M.4986 – EQT V/Securitas Direct, paragraphs 16-18.
22  Form CO, paragraphs 161-162.
23  Replies to questionnaire Q2 to alarm services providers, questions 9 and 9.1.
24  Commission decisions of of 15 July 2019 in case M.9370 – Telenor/DNA, paragraph 38; of 30 May 2018
    in case M.7000 – Liberty Global/Ziggo, paragraph 199.
25  Commission decision of 15 July 2019 in case M.9370 – Telenor/DNA, paragraph 38.
                                                          6
 ---pagebreak--- (32)     TEF is active as mobile network operator (“MNO”) in the supply of mobile
         telecommunication (and M2M services) in Spain whereas Prosegur Alarmas is not
         active in this market.
4.3.1.1. Product market definition
       (A)        Commission precedents
(33)     The Commission has previously considered that there is an overall retail market for
         mobile telecommunication services constituting a separate market from retail fixed
         telecommunication services. In previous decisions, the Commission did not further
         segment the overall retail mobile market based on the type of service (e.g. voice
         calls, SMS, data services), or the type of network technology (e.g. 2G, 3G, 4G). The
         Commission considered possible segments of the overall retail market for mobile
         telecommunication services between pre-paid or post-paid services and private
         customers or business customers, concluding that these did not constitute separate
         product markets but rather represent market segments within an overall retail
         market.26
(34)     In previous decisions, the Commission concluded that there is a separate market for
         M2M services.27
       (B)        The Notifying Parties’ view
(35)     The Notifying Parties submit that there is a single overall market for the provision of
         retail mobile telecommunication services, including M2M services.28
       (C)         The Commission’s assessment
(36)     The results of the market investigation conducted in the present case generally
         supported the market definition derived from the Commission’s past decisional
         practice.29 Notably, the respondents highlighted several demand-side and supply-side
         substitutability issues. In particular, one respondent stressed that not all retail
         telecommunication services providers offer M2M services, the reverse being also
         true. Furthermore, remote monitoring and control as well as predictive maintenance
         are key features for M2M services that are not necessary for traditional
         telecommunication services.30
26  Commission decisions of 18 July 2019 in case M.8864 – Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, recital
    67; of 30 May 2018 in case M.7000 – Liberty Global/Ziggo, paragraphs 201 and 207; of 1 September
    2016 in case M.7758 – Hutchison 3G Italy/Wind/JV, recital 162; of 3 August 2016 in case M.7978 –
    Vodafone/Liberty Global/Dutch JV, paragraph 74; of 11 May 2016 in case M.7612 – Hutchison 3G
    UK/Telefónica UK, recitals 255, 261, 270, 279, 287; of 2 July 2014 in case M.7018 – Telefónica
    Deutschland/E-Plus, recitals 31 to 55; of 28 May 2014 in case M.6992 – Hutchison 3G UK/Telefónica
    Ireland, recital 141; of 12 December 2012 in case M.6497 – Hutchison 3G Austria/Orange Austria, recital
    58.
27  Commission decisions of 15 July 2019 in case M.9370 – Telenor/DNA, paragraph 40-42; of 27 November
    2018 in case M.8792 – T-Mobile NL/Tele2 NL, recital 224.
28  Form CO, paragraph 147.
29  Replies to questionnaire Q1 to telecommunications operators, questions 6 and 6.1; Replies to
    questionnaire Q3 to international telecommunications operators, questions 4 and 4.1.
30  Replies to questionnaire Q1 to telecommunications operators, questions 6 and 6.1.
                                                         7
 ---pagebreak--- (37)    The Commission therefore concludes, for the purpose of this decision, that M2M
        services constitute a separate market. As for the remaining part of the market for the
        provision of retail mobile telecommunications services, the exact product market
        definition can be left open as the Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its
        compatibility with the internal market or the functioning of the EEA Agreement
        under any possible market definition.
4.3.1.2. Geographic market definition
      (A)        Commission precedents
(38)    The Commission has found that the overall market for retail mobile
        telecommunication services (except M2M services) is national in scope.31
(39)    As for M2M services, the Commission assessed whether the geographic market was
        national or regional (e.g. including the Nordic countries in a specific case), but
        ultimately left the geographic market definition open.32
      (B)        The Notifying Parties’ view
(40)    The Notifying Parties submit that the segment for M2M services is at least EEA-
        wide or global in scope as global M2M services are provided by all
        telecommunication companies, including international operators.33
      (C)        The Commission’s assessment
(41)    With regard to the overall market for retail mobile telecommunication services
        (excluding M2M services), the market investigation in this case did not provide any
        new elements justifying a departure from Commission’s previous decisions.34
(42)    As for the geographic scope of M2M services, the market investigation has yielded
        mixed results depending on the area of activity of the responding operator. The
        majority of operators active in Spain consider that a potential market for M2M
        services is national in scope35, whereas suppliers of M2M services mainly active
        outside of Spain have considered the geographic market to be wider in scope.36
        However, the respondents that argued for a wider geographic scope referred to
        devices which cross borders (e.g., connected cars), for which a multi-national SIM
        card from a single connectivity provider would be required. 37 This is not the case for
        alarm devices, which are installed at a fixed location.
31  Commission decisions of 18 July 2019 in case M.8864 – Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, recital
    70; of 15 July 2019 in case M.9370 – Telenor/DNA, paragraph 46; of 27 November 2018 – T-Mobile
    NL/Tele2 NL, paragraph 234, recital 234.
32  Commission decision of 15 July 2019 in case M.9370 – Telenor/DNA, paragraph 46.
33  Form CO, paragraph 169.
34  Replies to questionnaire Q1 to telecommunications operators, questions 6 and 6.1; Replies to
    questionnaire Q3 to international telecommunications operators, questions 5 and 5.1.
35  Replies to questionnaire Q1 to telecommunications operators, questions 12 and 12.1.
36  Replies to questionnaire Q3 to international telecommunications operators, questions 5 and 5.1.
37  Replies to questionnaire Q1 to telecommunications operators, questions 6 and 6.1; Replies to
    questionnaire Q2 to international telecommunications operators, questions 5 and 5.1.
                                                         8
 ---pagebreak--- (43)     For the purpose of this decision, the Commission concludes that the market for retail
         mobile telecommunication services (excluding M2M services) is national in scope.
         As for the market for M2M services, the Commission considers that, for the
         purposes of this decision, the exact geographic market definition can be left open, as
         the Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal
         market or the functioning of the EEA Agreement under any plausible geographic
         market definition.
4.3.2. Retail supply of fixed telephony services
(44)     Fixed telephony services to end customers comprise the provision of subscriptions
         enabling access to public telephone networks at a fixed location for the purpose of
         making and/or receiving calls and related services.38
(45)     TEF is the incumbent provider of fixed telephony services in Spain whereas
         Prosegur Alarmas is not active in this market.
4.3.2.1. Product market definition
(46)     In previous decisions, the Commission considered whether a distinction between
         local/national and international calls as well as between residential and non-
         residential customers should be drawn, based on the distinctions in the Commission
         Recommendation 2003/311/EC,39 but ultimately left the exact product market
         definition open.40
(47)     More recently, the Commission also considered that managed Voice over Internet
         Protocol (“VoIP”) services41 and traditional telephony are interchangeable and
         therefore belong to the same market. In recent decisions, the Commission considered
         that an overall retail market for fixed telephony services exists, which includes VoIP
         services.42
38  Commission decisions of 18 July 2019 in case M.8864 – Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, recital
    33; of 15 July 2019 in case M.9370 – Telenor/DNA, paragraph 47; of 3 August 2016 in case M.7978 –
    Vodafone/Liberty Global/Dutch JV, paragraph 21; of 4 February 2016 in case M.7637 – Liberty
    Global/BASE Belgium, recital 69; of 20 September 2013 in case M.6990 – Vodafone/Kabel Deutschland,
    paragraph 131.
39  Commission Recommendation of 11 February 2003 on relevant product and service markets within the
    electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with Directive
    2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for
    electronic communication networks and services (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document
    number C(2003) 497), OJ L 114, 8.5.2003, p. 45–49.
40  Commission decisions of 18 July 2019 in case M.8864 – Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, recital
    40; of 15 July 2019 in case M.9370 – Telenor/DNA, paragraph 52; of 29 January 2010 in case M.5730 –
    Telefónica/Hansenet Telekommunikation, paragraphs 16-17; of 29 June 2009 in case M.5532 – Carphone
    Warehouse/Tiscali UK, paragraphs 35 and 39; of 7 September 2005 in case M.3914 – Tele2/Versatel,
    paragraph 10.
41  VoIP is a technology that allows users to make voice calls using a broadband internet connection instead
    of a regular (or analogue) phone line.
42  Commission decisions of 18 July 2019 in case M.8864 – Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, recital
    40; of 3 August 2016 in case M.7978 – Vodafone/Liberty Global/Dutch JV, paragraph 26; of 4 February
    2016 in case M.7637 – Liberty Global/BASE Belgium, recital 69; of 20 September 2013 in case M.6990 –
    Vodafone/Kabel Deutschland, paragraph 131.
                                                        9
 ---pagebreak--- (48)    The Notifying Parties agree with the Commission’s past decisional practice in
        relation to the market for the retail supply of fixed telephony services.43
(49)    The Commission considers that, for the purposes of this decision, the exact product
        market definition with regard to the market for the retail supply of fixed telephony
        services can be left open, as the Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its
        compatibility with the internal market or the functioning of the EEA Agreement
        under any plausible product market definition.
4.3.2.2. Geographic market definition
(50)    In previous decisions, the Commission concluded that the retail market for the
        provision of fixed telephony services was national in scope.44 This is due to the
        continuing importance of national regulation in the telecommunications sector, the
        supply of upstream wholesale services that work on a national basis, and the fact that
        the pricing policies of telecommunications providers are predominantly national.45 In
        Liberty Global/BASE Belgium and MEIF 6 Fiber/KCOM Group, the Commission
        assessed the possibility for the scope of the market for the retail provision of fixed
        telephony services to be narrower than national.46 More recently in
        Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, the Commission considered that the scope
        of the market for the retail provision of fixed telephony services was national.47
(51)    The Notifying Parties agree with the Commission’s past decisional practice in
        relation to the market for the retail supply of fixed telephony services.48
(52)    The Commission considers that, for the purposes of this decision, the exact
        geographic market definition with regard to the market for the retail supply of fixed
        telephony services can be left open, as the Transaction does not raise serious doubts
        as to its compatibility with the internal market or the functioning of the EEA
        Agreement under any plausible geographic market definition.
4.3.3. Retail supply of fixed internet access services
(53)    Fixed internet access services at the retail level consist of the provision of a fixed
        telecommunications link enabling customers to access the internet through a fixed
        telecommunications connection.
43  Notifying Parties’ reply to RFI 11 of 13 February 2020, question 9.
44  Commission decisions of 18 July 2019 in case M.8864 – Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, recital
    46; of 15 July 2019 in case M.9370 – Telenor/DNA, paragraph 56; of 30 May 2018 in case M.7000 –
    Liberty Global/Ziggo, paragraph 150; of 3 August 2016 in case M.7978 – Vodafone/Liberty Global/ Dutch
    JV, paragraph 29; of 19 May 2015 in case M.7421 – Orange/Jazztel, recital 37.
45  Commission decisions of 18 July 2019 in case M.8864 – Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, recitals
    44-45; of 29 June 2009 in case M.5532 – Carphone Warehouse/Tiscali UK, paragraph 47; of 7 December
    2006 in case M.4442 – Carphone Warehouse Group plc/AOL UK, paragraph 19; of 7 September 2005 in
    case M.3914 – Tele2/Versatel, paragraph 18.
46  Commission decisions of 18 October 2019 in case M.9433 – MEIF 6 Fiber/KCOM Group, paragraphs 24-
    25; of 4 February 2016 in case M.7637 – Liberty Global/BASE Belgium, recital 73; .
47  Commission decisions of 18 July 2019 in case M.8864 – Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, recital
    46.
48  Notifying Parties’ reply to RFI 11 of 13 February 2020, question 9.
                                                         10
 ---pagebreak--- (54)    TEF is the incumbent provider of fixed internet access services in Spain whereas
        Prosegur Alarmas is not active in this market.
4.3.3.1. Product market definition
(55)    In previous cases, the Commission considered, but ultimately left open, possible
        segmentations within the supply of retail fixed internet access services according to
        (i) product type, distinguishing between narrowband, broadband and dedicated
        access; (ii) distribution mode, distinguishing between xDSL, fibre, cable (fixed-only)
        and internet provided through the mobile network infrastructure (fixed-wireless); and
        (iii) customer type, distinguishing between residential and small business customers
        on the one hand, and larger business customers and public authorities on the other.49
        At the same time, the Commission noted that the retail market for fixed internet
        access services should not be segmented according to download speed.50
(56)    More recently, in Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, the Commission
        considered that the relevant product for the retail supply of fixed internet access
        services is the overall retail market for the provision of fixed internet access services,
        including all product types, distribution modes and speeds/bandwidths, to residential
        and small business customers, excluding the supply of fixed internet services
        provided through mobile network infrastructure.51
(57)    The Notifying Parties submit that there is a single overall market for the retail
        provision of fixed internet access services, without further segmentations.52
(58)    The Commission considers that, in any event, for the purposes of this decision, the
        exact product market definition with regard to the market for the retail supply of
        fixed internet access services can be left open, as the Transaction does not raise
        serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market or the functioning of
        the EEA Agreement under any plausible product market definition.
4.3.3.2. Geographic market definition
(59)    In previous decisions, the Commission concluded that the retail market for the
        provision of fixed internet services was national in scope. 53 In Liberty Global/BASE
        Belgium and MEIF 6 Fiber/KCOM Group, the Commission considered whether the
49  Commission decisions of 18 October 2019 in case M.9433 – MEIF 6 Fiber/KCOM Group, paragraph 37;
    of 3 August 2016 in case M.7978 – Vodafone/Liberty Global/Dutch JV, paragraph 38; of 20 September
    2013 in case M.6990 – Vodafone/Kabel Deutschland, paragraphs 192-194; of 29 June 2010 in case
    M.5532 – Carphone Warehouse/Tiscali UK, paragraphs 721.
50  Commission decisions of 18 October 2019 in case M.9433 – MEIF 6 Fiber/KCOM Group, paragraph 37;
    of 3 August 2016 in case M.7978 – Vodafone/Liberty Global/Dutch JV, paragraph 38; of 20 September
    2013 in case M.6990 – Vodafone/Kabel Deutschland, paragraphs 192-194; of 29 June 2010 in case
    M.5532 – Carphone Warehouse/Tiscali UK, paragraphs 721.
51  Commission decision of 18 July 2019 in case M.8864 – Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, recital
    56.
52  Form CO, paragraph 153.
53  Commission decisions of 18 July 2019 in case M.8864 – Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, recital
    61; of 30 May 2018 in case M.7000 – Liberty Global/Ziggo, paragraph 169; of 3 August 2016 in case
    M.7978 – Vodafone/Liberty Global/Dutch JV, paragraph 40; of 20 September 2013 in case M.6990 –
    Vodafone/Kabel Deutschland, paragraph 197; of 29 June 2010 in case M.5532 – Carphone
    Warehouse/Tiscali UK, paragraph 47; of 29 January 2010 in case M.5730 – Telefónica/Hansenet
    Telekommunikation, paragraph 28.
                                                     11
 ---pagebreak---          geographic scope of the market should be defined on a national, regional basis or by
         reference to the footprint of the operators’ networks, but ultimately left the question
         open.54 More recently, in Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, the Commission
         considered the geographic scope of the retail market for the provision of fixed
         internet services was national in scope.55
(60)     The Notifying Parties agree with the Commission’s assessment and submit that the
         relevant market for the retail provision of fixed internet services is national in
         scope.56
(61)     The Commission considers that, in any event, for the purposes of this decision, the
         exact geographic market definition with regard to the market for the retail supply of
         fixed internet access services can be left open, as the Transaction does not raise
         serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market or the functioning of
         the EEA Agreement under any plausible geographic market definition.
4.3.4. Retail supply of TV services
(62)     TV distributors either limit themselves to carrying TV channels and making them
         available to end users, or also act as channel aggregators, which “package” TV
         channels into “bouquet” retail offers. The TV services supplied by TV distributors to
         end users consist of: (i) packages of linear TV channels (which they have either
         acquired or produced themselves); and (ii) content aggregated in non-linear services,
         such as video on demand (“VOD”), Subscription VOD (“SVOD”), Transactional
         VOD (“TVOD”) and Pay-Per-View (“PPV”). TV content can be delivered to end
         users through a number of technical platforms including terrestrial (“DTT”), cable,
         satellite and IPTV.57 Over-The-Top (“OTT”) players deliver channels and content in
         both a linear and non-linear fashion through the use of the internet.
(63)     TEF is active in the retail supply of TV services in Spain whereas Prosegur Alarmas
         is not active in this market.
4.3.4.1. Product market definition
(64)     In previous cases, the Commission distinguished two separate markets for the retail
         supply of television services: (i) Free-to-Air (“FTA”) TV and (ii) pay-TV.58 The
54  Commission decisions of 4 February 2016 in case M.7637 – Liberty Global/BASE Belgium, recitals 62-
    64; of 18 October 2019 in case M.9433 – MEIF 6 Fiber/KCOM Group, paragraph 43.
55  Commission decision of 18 July 2019 in case M.8864 – Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, recital
    61.
56  Form CO, paragraph 171.
57  IPTV is the abbreviation for Internet Protocol TV; it is a system through which television services are
    delivered using the internet protocol over a packet-switched network such as the internet, instead of being
    delivered through traditional terrestrial, satellite signal and cable television formats.
58  Commission decisions of 18 July 2007 in case M.4504 – SFR/Télé 2 France, recital 40, and of 25 June
    2008 in case M.5121 – News Corp /Premiere, paragraph 20. In other cases this question has been left open
    (see for instance the Commission decisions of 5 September 2019 in case M.9416 – Bolloré Group/M7
    Group, paragraph 51; of 15 July 2019 in case M.9370 – Telenor/DNA, paragraph 22; of 18 October 2019
    in case M.9433 – MEIF 6 Fiber/KCOM Group, paragraph 53; of 30 May 2018 in case M.7000 – Liberty
    Global/Ziggo, paragraph 135; of 24 February 2015 in case M.7194 – Liberty Global/Corelio/W&W/De
    Vijver Media, recitals 119-120; of 25 June 2008 in case M.5121 – News Corp/Premiere, paragraphs 15
    and 21).
                                                              12
 ---pagebreak---          Commission also considered whether pay-TV can be segmented further according
         to: (i) linear vs non-linear pay-TV services;59 (ii) distribution technologies (e.g.
         cable, satellite, or terrestrial);60 (ii) distribution technologies (e.g. cable, satellite, or
         terrestrial);61 and (iii) premium vs basic pay-TV services.62 In certain countries, due
         to the large penetration of pay-TV services and the fact that such services also carry
         the main FTA channels, the Commission has identified two separate product markets
         for: (i) basic pay-TV services (including FTA services) and (ii) premium pay-TV
         services. In previous cases, the Commission has left open the market definition with
         regard to each of these potential sub-segments.63
(65)     The Notifying Parties submit that there is a single overall market for the retail
         provision of TV services.64
(66)     The Commission considers that, in any event, for the purposes of this decision, the
         exact product market definition with regard to the market for the retail supply of TV
         services can be left open, as the Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its
         compatibility with the internal market or the functioning of the EEA Agreement
         under any plausible product market definition.
4.3.4.2. Geographic market definition
(67)     The Commission has previously considered that the market for the retail provision of
         TV services is either national, or limited to the geographic coverage of a supplier’s
         cable network.65
59  Commission decisions of 5 September 2019 in case M.9416 – Bolloré Group/M7 Group, paragraph 51; of
    15 July 2019 in case M.9370 – Telenor/DNA, paragraph 22; of 18 October 2019 in case M.9433 – MEIF 6
    Fiber/KCOM Group, paragraph 53; of 30 May 2018 in case M.7000 – Liberty Global/Ziggo, paragraph
    135; of 24 February 2015 in case M.7194 – Liberty Global/Corelio/W&W/De Vijver Media, recital 124; of
    25 June 2008 in case M.5121 – News Corp/Premiere, paragraph 21.
60  Commission decisions of 5 September 2019 in case M.9416 – Bolloré Group/M7 Group, paragraph 51; of
    15 July 2019 in case M.9370 – Telenor/DNA, paragraph 22; of 18 October 2019 in case M.9433 – MEIF 6
    Fiber/KCOM Group, paragraph 53; of 30 May 2018 in case M.7000 – Liberty Global/Ziggo, paragraph
    136; of 24 February 2015 in case M.7194 – Liberty Global/Corelio/W&W/De Vijver Media, recital 127; of
    21 December 2010 in case M.5932 – News Corp/BskyB, paragraph 105; of 25 June 2008 in case M.5121 –
    News Corp/Premiere, paragraph 22.
61  Commission decisions of 5 September 2019 in case M.9416 – Bolloré Group/M7 Group, paragraph 51; of
    15 July 2019 in case M.9370 – Telenor/DNA, paragraph 22; of 18 October 2019 in case M.9433 – MEIF 6
    Fiber/KCOM Group, paragraph 53; of 30 May 2018 in case M.7000 – Liberty Global/Ziggo, paragraph
    136; of 24 February 2015 in case M.7194 – Liberty Global/Corelio/W&W/De Vijver Media, recital 127; of
    21 December 2010 in case M.5932 – News Corp/BskyB, paragraph 105; of 25 June 2008 in case M.5121 –
    News Corp/Premiere, paragraph 22.
62  Commission decisions of 5 September 2019 in case M.9416 – Bolloré Group/M7 Group, paragraph 51; of
    15 July 2019 in case M.9370 – Telenor/DNA, paragraph 22; of 18 October 2019 in case M.9433 – MEIF 6
    Fiber/KCOM Group, paragraph 53; of 24 February 2015 in case M.7194 – Liberty
    Global/Corelio/W&W/De Vijver Media, recital 119.
63  Commission decisions of 18 July 2019 in case M.8864 – Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, recital
    83; of 5 September 2019 in case M.9416 – Bolloré Group/M7 Group, paragraph 51; of 15 July 2019 in
    case M.9370 – Telenor/DNA, paragraph 22; of 15 June 2018 in case M.8861 – Comcast/Sky, paragraphs
    57-59; of 7 April 2017 in case M.8354 – Fox/Sky, paragraph 101.
64  Notifying Parties’ reply to RFI 11 of 13 February 2020, question 10.
65  Commission decisions of 18 July 2019 in case M.8864 – Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, recital
    88; of 5 September 2019 in case M.9416 – Bolloré Group/M7 Group, paragraph 55; of 24 February 2015
    in case M.7194 – Liberty Global/Corelio/W&W/De Vijver Media.
                                                         13
 ---pagebreak--- (68)     The Notifying Parties have not objected to the Commission’s past decisional practice
         in relation to the market for the retail supply of TV services.66
(69)     The Commission considers that, in any event, for the purposes of this decision, the
         exact geographic market definition with regard to the market for the retail supply of
         TV services can be left open, as the Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to
         its compatibility with the internal market or the functioning of the EEA Agreement
         under any plausible geographic market definition.
4.3.5. Retail supply of multiple play services
(70)     The term “multiple play” relates to offers comprising two or more of the following
         services provided to retail consumers: fixed telephony, fixed internet access, TV and
         mobile telecommunications services. Multiple play comprising two, three or four of
         these services is referred to as dual play (“2P”), triple play (“3P”) and quadruple play
         (“4P”) respectively.
(71)     TEF is a supplier of multiple play services in Spain whereas Prosegur Alarmas is not
         active in this market.
4.3.5.1. Product market definition
       (A)        Commission precedents
(72)     In previous decisions, the Commission considered, but ultimately left open, the
         existence of distinct markets for the supply of multiple play offerings that comprise a
         bundle of two or more telecommunication (fixed internet access, fixed telephony,
         mobile) and TV services.67 In its previous analysis of this market,68 the Commission
         examined the factors associated with the rise in popularity of multiple play offers. In
         particular, customers choose multiple play bundles mainly because of the lower
         price, additional benefits and convenience of having one supplier/point of contact.
         From the supply-side, operators offer bundled services as a tool to increase customer
         loyalty and reduce customer churn.
       (B)        The Notifying Parties’ view
(73)     The Notifying Parties consider that it is unlikely that there is a separate retail market
         for the provision of multiple play services due to potential demand-side
66  Notifying Parties’ reply to RFI 11 of 13 February 2020, question 10.
67  Commission decisions of 18 July 2019 in case M.8864 – Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, recital
    161; of 30 May 2018 in case M.7000 – Liberty Global/Ziggo, paragraph 230; of 4 February 2016 in case
    M.7637 – Liberty Global/BASE Belgium, recital 96; of 19 May 2015 in case M.7421 Orange/Jazztel,
    recitals 86 and 91; of 20 September 2013 in case M.6990 – Vodafone/Kabel Deutschland, paragraph 261;
    of 3 July 2012 in case M.6584 – Vodafone/Cable & Wireless, paragraphs 102-104; of 16 June 2011 in
    case M.5900 – LGI/KBW, paragraphs 183-186; of 25 January 2010 in case M.5734 – Liberty Global
    Europe/Unitymedia, paragraphs 43-48.
68 See, for example, Commission decisions of 18 July 2019 in case M.8864 – Vodafone/Certain Liberty
    Global Assets, recital 153; of 3 August 2016 in case M.7978 – Vodafone/Liberty Global/Dutch JV,
    paragraph 93.
                                                         14
 ---pagebreak---         substitutability between multi-play offerings and their separate component
        services.69
       (C)       The Commission’s assessment
(74)    The results of the market investigation conducted in the present case generally
        supported the possibility of a potential separate market for the retail supply of
        multiple play services. In particular, most respondents considered that quadruple
        play (“4P”) offerings that comprise fixed internet access, fixed telephony, mobile
        and TV services have a high penetration in the Spanish residential market.70
(75)    The Commission considers that, in any event, for the purposes of this decision, the
        exact product market definition with regard to the market for the retail supply of
        multiple play services can be left open, as the Transaction does not raise serious
        doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market or the functioning of the EEA
        Agreement under any plausible product market definition.
4.3.5.2. Geographic market definition
       (A)       Commission precedents
(76)    In previous decisions, the Commission considered that the geographic scope of any
        possible retail market for multiple play services would be national since the
        components of the multiple play offers are offered individually at national level and
        the bundling of the services would not change the geographic scope of the
        components. It nevertheless left the exact geographic delineation of the possible
        multiple play market open.71 However, in recent decisions, the Commission noted
        that bundles display their competitive effects on a national basis.72
       (B)       The Notifying Parties’ view
(77)    The Notifying Parties agree that a possible market for the retail provision of multiple
        play services is national in scope.73
       (C)       The Commission’s assessment
(78)    The market investigation in this case did not provide any new elements justifying a
        departure from the Commission's previous decisions.74
(79)    The Commission considers that, for the purposes of this decision, the exact
        geographic market definition with regard to the market for the retail supply of
        multiple play services can be left open, as the Transaction does not raise serious
69  Form CO, paragraph 160.
70  Replies to questionnaire Q1 to telecommunications operators, questions 7 and 7.1.
71  Commission decisions of 18 October 2019 in case M.9433 – MEIF 6 Fiber/KCOM Group, paragraph 70;
    of 19 May 2015 in case M.7421 – Orange/Jazztel, recitals 89-90; of 20 September 2013 in case M.6990 –
    Vodafone/Kabel Deutschland, paragraphs 263-265; of 16 June 2011 in case M.5900 – LGI/KBW,
    paragraphs 183-186.
72  Commission decisions of 30 May 2018 in case M.7000 – Liberty Global/Ziggo, paragraph 232 of 18 July
    2019 in case M.8864 – Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, recital 165.
73  Form CO, paragraph 173.
74  Replies to questionnaire Q1 to telecommunications operators, questions 7 and 7.1.
                                                       15
 ---pagebreak---         doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market or the functioning of the EEA
        Agreement under any plausible geographic market definition.
5.      COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT
5.1.    Analytical framework
(80)    Under Article 2(2) and Article 2(3) of the Merger Regulation, the Commission must
        assess whether a proposed concentration would significantly impede effective
        competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it, in particular through
        the creation or strengthening of a dominant position.
(81)    In this respect, a merger may entail horizontal and/or non-horizontal effects.
        Horizontal effects are those deriving from a concentration where the undertakings
        concerned are actual or potential competitors of each other in one or more of the
        relevant markets concerned. Non-horizontal effects are those deriving from a
        concentration where the undertakings concerned are active in different relevant
        markets.
(82)    As regards non-horizontal mergers, two broad types of such mergers can be
        distinguished: vertical mergers and conglomerate mergers.75 Vertical mergers
        involve companies operating at different levels of the supply chain. 76 Conglomerate
        mergers are mergers between firms that are in a relationship which is neither
        horizontal (as competitors in the same relevant market) nor vertical (as suppliers or
        customers).77
(83)    The Commission appraises horizontal effects in accordance with the guidance set out
        in the relevant notice, that is to say the Horizontal Merger Guidelines.78
        Additionally, the Commission appraises non-horizontal effects in accordance with
        the guidance set out in the relevant notice, that is to say the Non-Horizontal Merger
        Guidelines.
5.2.    Affected markets
(84)    The Transaction results in a limited horizontal overlap between the Parties’ activities
        in the provision of security systems, more precisely in the provision of (i) alarm
        installation and maintenance services and (ii) alarm monitoring and response
        services to all, residential and business, customers in Spain. However, a horizontally
        affected market could only arise in the potential segment for alarm services for
        business customers. In this segment, the Parties had a combined market share of [20-
        30]% by value in Spain in 2018 (PCS [10-20]%, Prosegur Alarmas [5-10]% and TEF
        [0-5]%79). However, in light of TEF’s de minimis presence in this segment, the
75  Guidelines on the assessment of non-horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of
    concentrations between undertakings ("Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines"), OJ C 265, 18.10.2008,
    paragraph 3.
76  Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 4.
77  Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 5.
78  Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of
    concentrations between undertakings ("Horizontal Merger Guidelines"), OJ C 31, 05.02.2004.
79  TEF’s exact market share is [0-5]%.
                                                      16
 ---pagebreak---          increment of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (“HHI”) of below 150 (i.e., 0.1) and
         the fact that sufficient credible competitors would remain (in particular Securitas
         Direct and Tyco with market shares of 34.9% and 23.1%, respectively), the
         Commission considers that the concentration does not raise serious doubts as to its
         compatibility with the common market in the potential segment for alarm services
         for business customers. As for the market for alarm services and the plausible
         segmentation for residential customers, in light of TEF’s de minimis presence in the
         supply of alarm services, amounting to a market share of [0-5]%, and the Parties’
         combined market share of below 20%, there is no horizontally affected market.
         Therefore, the horizontal overlaps between the Parties will not be considered further.
(85)     Moreover, TEF supplies M2M services, which are used as input for the provision of
         alarm services. Therefore, the Transaction gives rise to vertically affected markets in
         relation to TEF’s activities in the upstream market for the supply of M2M services
         and Prosegur Alarmas’ activities in the downstream market for the supply of alarm
         services (i.e., (i) alarm installation and maintenance services and (ii) alarm
         monitoring and response services to all, residential and business customers) in
         Spain.80
(86)     The Transaction further results in a potential conglomerate relationship in relation to
         the potential bundling of TEF’s and Prosegur Alarmas’ services in the markets for
         telecommunication and TV services (i.e., (i) mobile telecommunication services, (ii)
         fixed telephony services, (iii) fixed internet access services, (iv) TV services and (v)
         multiple play services) and alarm services (i.e., (i) alarm installation and
         maintenance services and (ii) alarm monitoring and response services), which can be
         considered to be closely related markets for residential and SME customers81, in
         Spain.
5.3.     Market shares
(87)     According to the Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, market shares provide useful
         first indications of the market structure and of the competitive importance of both the
         merging parties and their competitors.82,83
80  Alarm services providers also purchase other telecommunication services, such as fixed telephony, mobile
    telecommunication and business connectivity. However, these do not give rise to meaningful vertical
    relationships. First, these concern standard telecommunication services, similar to those purchased by any
    other business customer. Second, among telecommunication services, M2M services are by far the most
    relevant cost category (Form CO, Annex 1.1, section 2.2., page 8). Third, alarm services providers
    responding to the market investigation have not identified any telecommunication services, other than
    M2M services, as important input to the provision of alarm services (Replies to questionnaire Q2 to alarm
    services providers, questions 3.1 and 13.3).
81 The potential bundling of telecommunication and alarm services for larger business customers was not
    identified as plausible scenario based on the market investigation and available evidence on industry
    trends. Moreover, Prosegur Alarmas and TEF are not active in the supply of alarm services to business
    customers and hence, in any case, there would be no Transaction-specific change in relation to business
    customers.
82 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 24.
83 The presented market shares for all markets cover the last three business years, i.e., 2016, 2017 and 2018,
    for which complete market share information is available. Market share information for the full year 2019
    is not yet available.
                                                         17
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---        foreclosure occurs where the merger is likely to foreclose upstream competitors by
       restricting their access to a sufficient customer base.
(123) In assessing the likelihood of an anticompetitive foreclosure scenario, the
       Commission examines, first, whether the merged entity would have, post-merger, the
       ability to substantially foreclose access to inputs or customers, second, whether it
       would have the incentive to do so, and third, whether a foreclosure strategy would
       have a significant detrimental effect on competition.97
(124) As regards ability to foreclose, under the Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, input
       foreclosure may lead to competition problems if the upstream input is important for
       the downstream product.98 For input foreclosure to be a concern, a vertically
       integrated merged entity must have a significant degree of market power in the
       upstream market. It is only in those circumstances that the merged entity can be
       expected to have significant influence on the conditions of competition in the
       upstream market and thus, possibly, on prices and supply conditions in the
       downstream market.99
(125) With respect to incentives to foreclose, paragraph 40 of the Non-Horizontal Merger
       Guidelines states that the incentive of the merged entity to foreclose depends on the
       degree to which foreclosure would be profitable. The vertically integrated firm will
       take into account how its supply of inputs to competitors downstream will affect not
       only the profits of its upstream division, but also of its downstream division.
       Essentially, the merged entity faces a trade-off between the profit lost in the
       upstream market due to a reduction of input sales to (actual or potential) rivals and
       the profit gain, in the short or longer term, from expanding sales downstream or, as
       the case may be, being able to raise prices for consumers.100 Additionally, paragraph
       42 of the Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines indicates that “[t]he incentive for the
       integrated firm to raise rivals' costs further depends on the extent to which
       downstream demand is likely to be diverted away from foreclosed rivals and the
       share of that diverted demand that the downstream division of the integrated firm can
       capture”.
(126) As regards the effects of input foreclosure, the Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines
       explain that such conduct raises competition concerns when it leads to increased
       prices on the downstream market. First, anticompetitive foreclosure may occur when
       a vertical merger allows the merging parties to increase the costs of downstream
       rivals in the market thereby leading to upward pressure on their sales prices. Second,
       effective competition may be significantly impeded by raising barriers to entry to
       potential competitors.101 The Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines further state that if
       there remain sufficient credible downstream competitors whose costs are not likely
       to be raised, for example because they are themselves vertically integrated or they
       are capable of switching to adequate alternative inputs, competition from those firms
97  Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 32.
98  Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 34.
99 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 35.
100 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 40.
101 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraphs 47-49.
                                                      26
 ---pagebreak---          may constitute a sufficient constraint on the merged entity and therefore prevent
         output prices from rising above pre-merger levels.102
(127) For customer foreclosure to be a concern, a vertical merger must involve a company
         which is an important customer with a significant degree of market power in the
         downstream market. If, on the contrary, there is a sufficiently large customer base, at
         present or in the future, that is likely to turn to independent suppliers, the
         Commission is unlikely to raise competition concerns on that ground.103
5.4.2. Assessment of potential input foreclosure
(128) This section assesses the risk of input foreclosure with regard to M2M services as
         M2M services are used as input in the provision of alarm services, i.e., concerning
         the possible markets for (i) alarm installation and maintenance and (ii) alarm
         monitoring and response services for all, residential and business customers in
         Spain.104 The possible segmentations by type of alarm service and type of customer
         do not have any impact on the competitive assessment and therefore the assessment
         focusses on the downstream market for the provision of alarm services to all
         customers.
5.4.2.1. The Notifying Parties’ views
(129) The Notifying Parties submit that TEF will not have the ability or the incentive to
         restrict access to M2M services or to raise prices to downstream competitors of
         Prosegur Alarmas post-Transaction.105
         As regards ability
(130) First, the Notifying Parties submit that M2M services do not constitute an important
         input for the provision of alarm services. They note that M2M services are a pure
         commodity in the context of the provision of alarm services. Accordingly, there is no
         specific technology or differentiation among different telecommunication providers.
         M2M services would only represent about [0-5]% of the total cost of Prosegur
         Alarmas’ products and services. Moreover, the Notifying Parties argue that M2M
         services are mainly used as backup line, while the end customer’s fixed internet
         access connection would usually be used as primary source of connectivity.
         Nevertheless, the Notifying Parties acknowledge that it is advisable for alarm
         services providers to have more than one M2M services provider in order to ensure
         universal geographic coverage.106
102 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 50.
103 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 61.
104 The assessment focusses on input foreclosure. Customer foreclosure can be excluded, considering that the
    telecommunication services acquired by Prosegur Alarmas represent […] share of the total revenues of
    TEF’s rival telecommunications providers. In particular, according to the Notifying Parties, Prosegur
    Alarmas’ expenditure in telecommunication services (including M2M services as one service) represents
    less than [0-5]% of the total joint revenues of TEF’s rivals (Form CO, Annex 1.1, section 2.3, page 19).
    Therefore, TEF’s rivals would not face any appreciable competitive disadvantage if the JV started
    acquiring services exclusively from TEF.
105 Form CO, paragraphs 188-207.
106 Form CO, Annex 1.1, section 2.2.1, pages 9-12.
                                                         27
 ---pagebreak--- (131) Second, the Notifying Parties submit that TEF would not have a significant degree of
        market power in the upstream market. On the one hand, the Notifying Parties point
        out that TEF’s market share in the provision of M2M services in Spain has decreased
        from [40-50]% in 2016 to [30-40]% in 2018 while TEF’s main competitors, Orange
        and Vodafone, were able to increase their market shares. On the other hand, they
        explain that TEF would continue to face substantial competition from international
        operators (e.g. AT&T, SFR, TIM, Telenor, T-Mobile), that provide M2M services in
        Spain based on roaming agreements and which would be credible alternative
        suppliers for alarm services providers.107
        As regards incentives
(132) The Notifying Parties emphasise that TEF would never jeopardise its position in the
        telecommunication market, which is its core business, in favour of Prosegur
        Alarmas’ presence in alarm services. In 2018, TEF has more than […] subscribers to
        its Movistar Fusión multiple play product alone whereas Prosegur Alarmas has only
        […] subscribers to its alarm services.108
(133) Moreover, Prosegur Alarmas would have a moderate market share of about [10-
        20]% in the downstream market for the provision of alarm services, which would
        limit the base of sales on which the JV could potentially enjoy increased margins
        following a foreclosure strategy.109
        As regards effects
(134) The Notifying Parties argue that even if TEF tried to foreclose competing suppliers
        of alarm services, TEF would not be able to generate a competitive disadvantage to
        competitors given the low share that M2M services represent of the total costs for
        alarm services providers and the existence of credible alternative suppliers of M2M
        services.110
5.4.2.2. The Commission’s assessment
(135) For the reasons set out below, the Commission considers that TEF will not have the
        ability and incentive to foreclose non-integrated competitors by engaging in input
        foreclosure, e.g. by stopping the supply of M2M services to the JV’s rivals or to
        provide M2M services at less favourable terms and conditions than pre-Transaction.
        Furthermore, even if TEF tried to engage in input foreclosure, such a strategy would
        not have a significantly detrimental effect on competition.
        As regards ability
(136) The Commission considers that TEF is unlikely to have the ability to engage in an
        input foreclosure strategy.
(137) As explained by the Notifying Parties, alarm services can and are often provided
        based on the fixed telecommunication service contracted by the end customer. In this
107 Form CO, Annex 1.1, section 2.2.1, pages 12-15.
108 Form CO, Annex 1.1, section 2.2.2, pages 15-18.
109 Form CO, Annex 1.1, table 8, page 23.
110 Form CO, Annex 1.1, section 2.2.3, pages 18-19.
                                                    28
 ---pagebreak---          case, there is no wholesale relationship between the telecommunication operators
         and alarm services providers, as the alarm systems use the fixed internet access
         already installed at the client’s property.111
(138) However, all alarm services providers responding to the market investigation
         confirmed that they also use M2M services in their alarm systems. 112 While many
         alarm services providers use M2M services as primary source of connectivity, others
         employ M2M services only as a back-up line. There are mixed views as to whether a
         M2M connection is essential for the provision of alarm services, but the majority of
         respondents are of the view that a M2M connection, either as primary or back-up
         solution, is very important for the provision of alarm services. One respondent
         explains that M2M services deliver an essential component of its services, allowing
         for access control, alarm triggering, SOS requests and general communication with
         the ARC.113 Therefore, the Commission considers that it cannot be excluded that
         M2M services constitute an important input without which alarm services could not
         effectively be sold on the market.
(139) For input foreclosure to be a concern, the Parties must have a significant degree of
         market power and a significant influence on the conditions of competition in the
         upstream market. TEF is the market leader in the provision of M2M services with a
         share of [30-40]% in 2018, followed by Orange and Vodafone with market shares of
         [30-40] and [20-30]%, respectively.114 The three Spanish MNOs are the main
         providers of M2M services in an overall concentrated market. Each of the MNOs
         active on this market is likely to have some degree of market power but not a
         significant degree of market power in light of the existence of at least two alternative
         suppliers with strong positions.
(140) Moreover, the results of the market investigation provided further elements to
         support the view that TEF is unlikely have to a significant degree of market power in
         the upstream market, both in general and specifically with regard to providers of
         alarm services.
(141) First, respondents to the market investigation indicated that there are several credible
         alternative suppliers of M2M services for alarm services providers in Spain.115
         Respondents mentioned Orange and Vodafone but also referred to Másmóvil and
         Euskaltel, for which the Notifying Parties have not provided market share estimates.
         Therefore, there are at least three main competitors and two smaller competitors
         active on the Spanish market for M2M services.
(142) Second, some alarm services providers indicated that international
         telecommunication operators and/or resellers offering M2M services in Spain based
         on roaming agreements can be considered as credible alternative suppliers. 116 While
         the provision of M2M services by non-Spanish operators is not considered to be part
111 Form CO, paragraph 17.
112 Replies to questionnaire Q2 to alarm services providers, question 13.
113 Replies to questionnaire Q2 to alarm services providers, questions 13.1-13.5; non-confidential submission
    of a competitor of Prosegur Alarmas of 13 February 2020, page 2.
114 Form CO, table 39.
115 Replies to questionnaire Q1 to telecommunications operators, question 16; Replies to questionnaire Q2 to
    alarm services providers, question 16.
116 Replies to questionnaire Q2 to alarm services providers, questions 10 and 10.1.
                                                         29
 ---pagebreak---          of the relevant market (as explained in section 4.3.1.2), the results of the market
         investigation suggest that non-Spanish operators and/or resellers represent a certain
         competitive constraint for some alarm services providers. Nevertheless, other alarm
         services providers indicated that non-Spanish operators are not competitive in terms
         of price and service.117
(143) Third, respondents to the market investigation explained that alarm services
         providers do not have any special requirements in terms of price, quality or
         coverage. One Spanish MNO explained: “M2M services provided to security
         services providers are similar to M2M services offered to other customers, they do
         not have specific requirements in terms of price, quality or coverage. Services are
         based on mobile voice, data or SMS services to connect the alarm systems of end
         customers.”118
(144) Fourth, the results of the market investigation confirmed that there are generally no
         spots or wider geographic areas in Spain where TEF is the only viable operator with
         sufficient network coverage.119 This is also in line with the results of Umlaut’s 2019
         study on data service network coverage for the main Spanish mobile
         telecommunication providers, in urban and non-urban areas.120 The results of this
         study show that the level of coverage is close to 100% for all providers. This is
         further corroborated by the fact that not all alarm services providers responding to
         the market investigation currently purchase M2M cards from TEF. Some rely
         exclusively on TEF’s competitors, such as Vodafone and Orange, which shows that
         TEF is dispensable.121
(145) In case mobile connectivity of one or several MNOs should be poor or unstable in a
         very specific location of the alarm device, respondents explain that alarm services
         providers can still ensure connectivity by relying either on roaming agreements
         between different MNOs or on a fixed internet access connection.122
(146) In the course of the market investigation, only one alarm services provider submitted
         a significantly different view and considered that TEF’s M2M services are an
         essential input which is not replicable by other suppliers in certain areas of Spain.123
         This complainant itself acknowledges that “all these three telecoms operators [TEF,
         Vodafone, Orange] can grant coverage in more than 99% of Spain”124, however, it
         submits that the strength of the signal can vary between operators which could have
         an impact of the reliability of the alarm system. These concerns are inconsistent with
         the majority view expressed by other alarm services providers which explain that
117 Replies to questionnaire Q2 to alarm services providers, questions 10 and 10.1.
118 Replies to questionnaire Q1 to telecommunications operators, question 13.1; Replies to questionnaire Q2
    to alarm services providers, question 13.1.
119 Replies to questionnaire Q1 to telecommunications operators, question 16.3; Replies to questionnaire Q2
    to alarm services providers, question 13.1.
120 Umlaut, 2019, El análisis de las redes de telefonía móvil en España en 2019. This study is based on 1 600
    million observations obtained from 154 000 users between April and September 2019.
121 Replies to questionnaire Q2 to alarm services providers, question 15.1.
122 Replies to questionnaire Q1 to telecommunications operators, question 11; Replies to questionnaire Q2 to
    alarm services providers, question 13.2.
123 Replies to questionnaire Q2 to alarm services providers, questions 13-16.3.
124 Replies to questionnaire Q2 to alarm services providers, question 16.1.
                                                         30
 ---pagebreak---         there are numerous alternative suppliers of M2M services with a sufficient level of
        service.
(147) Finally, as explained by the Notifying Parties, M2M services represent about […] of
        the total cost of Prosegur Alarmas’ products and services.125 Hence, any partial
        foreclosure strategy consisting in increasing the price of TEF’s M2M services would
        not result in a significant increase in rival alarm services providers’ costs. The
        market investigation did not provide any elements contesting the Notifying Parties’
        argument that M2M services do not constitute an important cost factor for alarm
        services providers.126
(148) In light of the explanations given in paragraphs (136) to (147), and in particular
        given the existence of alternative credible suppliers of M2M services, which are able
        to satisfy the requirements of alarm services providers in terms of price, quality and
        coverage, the Commission considers that TEF would not have the ability to foreclose
        its downstream rivals with regard to M2M services.
        As regards incentives
(149) The Commission considers that TEF is unlikely to have an incentive to engage in an
        input foreclosure strategy.
(150) First, the Commission notes that TEF’s main business focus are telecommunications
        rather than alarm services. Therefore, unless clearly profitable, it is unlikely that TEF
        would risk reputational damage by foreclosing its telecommunication customers
        from its M2M services.
(151) Second, the Notifying Parties’ submission evidences that a potential foreclosure
        strategy would not be profitable. If TEF stopped supplying Prosegur Alarmas’ main
        rivals, which are large corporate clients for TEF, this would lead to a certain and
        immediate loss of annual revenues which ranged between EUR […] and […] over
        the last four years.127 It is unlikely that this loss would be compensated by any
        potential gain of customers or revenues in the alarms business, which is an ancillary
        activity for TEF and where TEF only has a 50% shareholding in the JV. Such gain in
        terms of additional clients and revenues in the alarms business due to the input
        foreclosure strategy is particularly unlikely considering that alarm services providers
        have equally credible alternative suppliers to TEF.128
(152) Third, a partial foreclosure strategy consisting in increasing the price of TEF’s M2M
        services, would equally not be profitable. Considering that M2M services represent a
        very low proportion of alarm services providers’ costs ([…]), such a strategy would
125 Form CO, paragraph 191.
126 Replies to questionnaire Q2 to alarm services providers, question 13.
127 Form CO, Annex 1.1, Table 5, page 16.
128 The numerical analysis carried out by the Notifying Parties shows that the JV would need to obtain nearly
    […] as a result of the potential foreclosure strategy in order to compensate the loss of revenues from M2M
    services that TEF currently provides to Prosegur Alarmas’ rival alarm operators (Form CO, Annex 1.1,
    Table 6, page 18). The analysis does not take into account that the JV may also be able to benefit from
    higher price levels downstream as a result from the lessening of competition. However, in any case, a
    foreclosure strategy is unlikely to be profitable also when taking this effect into account.
                                                            31
 ---pagebreak---         not significantly raise downstream rivals’ costs and hence would not divert a
        significant share of customers from rival alarm services providers to TEF.
(153) Finally, the vast majority of respondents to the market investigation, both
        telecommunication and alarm services providers, indicated that TEF would not have
        the incentive to foreclose downstream competitors with regard to the provision of
        M2M services, i.e. to stop supplying M2M services or to provide M2M services at
        less favourable terms and conditions than today.129
(154) The Commission therefore concludes that TEF is unlikely to have the incentive to
        foreclose competing alarm services providers from its M2M services in Spain.
        As regards effects
(155) Regardless of whether TEF has either the ability or the incentive to foreclose
        competing downstream rivals with regard to the supply of M2M services, such
        strategy would be unlikely to have any material impact on competition.
(156) First, if TEF decided to increase the price of M2M services, as explained in
        paragraph (147), this would not significantly raise rivals’ costs and would hence not
        lead to increased prices in the downstream market.
(157) Second, if TEF decided to discontinue the supply or reduce the quality of its M2M
        services, alarm services providers could switch to alternative telecommunication
        operators. As explained in paragraphs (139) to (146), there are sufficient alternative
        suppliers of M2M services active on the Spanish market.
(158) Switching M2M services provider for new end users is costless for alarm services
        providers. There are some costs associated to switching M2M services provider for
        the existing customer base. In particular, alarm operators would have to replace the
        SIM card installed in the alarm equipment located in the end user’s premises.
        According to internal estimates of Prosegur Alarmas, the costs of replacing the SIM
        card of an existing customer ranges between EUR […] and EUR […], comparable to
        […].130
(159) However, switching costs can be mitigated. First, most alarm services providers
        multi-source M2M services and hence would not have to replace all of their M2M
        cards. For instance, Prosegur Alarmas’ main provider is [COMPANY], with […]%
        of its installed SIM cards, followed by [COMPANY] with […]% and [COMPANY]
        with […]%. Based on the number of its supplied SIM cards, TEF estimates that it
        represents less than […]% of the installed SIM cards in Securitas Direct’s and
        Tyco’s alarm systems and even less for other competitors. Second, the main cost
        associated to SIM cards replacement is the cost of the personnel who visits the end
        user’s premises. The cost of switching can be reduced to EUR […], according to
        Prosegur Alarmas, if the SIM card is replaced during the alarm equipment
        maintenance operations that alarm operators need to carry out on an annual basis.131
129 Replies to questionnaire Q1 to telecommunications operators, question 15; Replies to questionnaire Q2 to
    alarm services providers, question 15.
130 Form CO, Annex 1.1, section 2.2.1.3, pages 11-12.
131 Form CO, Annex 1.1, section 2.2.1.3, pages 11-12.
                                                       32
 ---pagebreak--- 5.4.2.3. Conclusion
(160) In light of the above considerations and based on the results of the market
        investigation, the Commission considers the Transaction does not give rise to serious
        doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market as a result of any input
        foreclosure strategy by the Parties with regard to M2M services.
5.5.    Conglomerate effects
5.5.1. Legal framework
(161) According to the Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, in most circumstances,
        conglomerate mergers do not lead to competition problems.132
(162) However, foreclosure effects may arise when the combination of products in related
        markets may confer on the merged entity the ability and incentive to leverage a
        strong market position from one market to another closely related market by means
        of tying or bundling or other exclusionary practices. The Non-Horizontal Merger
        Guidelines distinguish between bundling, which usually refers to the way products
        are offered and priced by the merged entity133 and tying, usually referring to
        situations where customers that purchase one good (the tying good) are required to
        also purchase another good from the producer (the tied good).
(163) Tying and bundling as such are common practices that often have no anticompetitive
        consequences. Nevertheless, in certain circumstances, these practices may lead to a
        reduction in actual or potential rivals’ ability or incentive to compete. Foreclosure
        may also take more subtle forms, such as the degradation of the quality of the
        standalone product.134 This may reduce the competitive pressure on the merged
        entity allowing it to increase prices.135
(164) In assessing the likelihood of such a scenario, the Commission examines, first,
        whether the merged firm would have the ability to foreclose its rivals, 136 second,
        whether it would have the economic incentive to do so137 and, third, whether a
        foreclosure strategy would have a significant detrimental effect on competition, thus
        causing harm to consumers.138 In practice, these factors are often examined together
        as they are closely intertwined.
(165) In order to be able to foreclose competitors, the merged entity must have a
        significant degree of market power, which does not necessarily amount to
        dominance, in one of the markets concerned. The effects of bundling or tying can
        only be expected to be substantial when at least one of the merging parties’ products
        is viewed by many customers as particularly important and there are few relevant
132 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 92.
133 Within bundling practices, the distinction is also made between pure bundling and mixed bundling. In the
    case of pure bundling the products are only sold jointly in fixed proportions. With mixed bundling the
    products are also available separately, but the sum of the stand-alone prices is higher than the bundled
    price.
134 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 33.
135 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 93.
136 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraphs 95 to 104.
137 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraphs 105 to 110.
138 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraphs 111 to 118.
                                                          33
 ---pagebreak---         alternatives for that product.139 Further, for foreclosure to be a potential concern, it
        must be the case that there is a large common pool of customers, which is more
        likely to be the case when the products are complementary.140 Finally, bundling is
        less likely to lead to foreclosure if rival firms are able to deploy effective and timely
        counter-strategies, such as single-product companies combining their offers.141
(166) The incentive to foreclose rivals through bundling or tying depends on the degree to
        which this strategy is profitable.142 Bundling and tying may entail losses or foregone
        revenues for the merged entity.143 However, they may also allow the merged entity
        to increase profits by gaining market power in the tied goods market, protecting
        market power in the tying good market, or a combination of the two.144
(167) It is only when a sufficiently large fraction of market output is affected by
        foreclosure resulting from the concentration that the concentration may significantly
        impede effective competition. If there remain effective single-product players in
        either market, competition is unlikely to deteriorate following a conglomerate
        concentration.145 The effect on competition needs to be assessed in light of
        countervailing factors such as the presence of countervailing buyer power or the
        likelihood that entry would maintain effective competition in the upstream or
        downstream markets.146
5.5.2. Assessment of potential conglomerate effects
(168) There are a number of recent examples of alliances between telecommunication
        operators and alarm services providers, as well as examples of telecommunication
        operators developing security solutions, both in Spain and worldwide. Some of them
        offer bundles of telecommunication and alarm services to residential and SME
        customers.147 In light of this development, TEF’s telecommunication offering can be
        seen as complementary to the alarm services supplied by Prosegur Alarmas, because
        some end customers may procure fixed telephony, fixed internet access, mobile, TV
        and alarm services from one and the same provider.
(169) This section therefore examines whether, given the conglomerate relationship
        identified above, the Transaction could lead to the foreclosure of alarm services
        providers that compete with Prosegur Alarmas, and/or the foreclosure of suppliers of
        telecommunication and TV services that compete with TEF, as a result of a bundling
        or tying strategy by the Parties.
139 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 99.
140 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 100.
141 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 103.
142 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 105.
143 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 106.
144 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 108.
145 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 113.
146 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 114.
147 Similarly to multiple play telecommunication bundles, the benefits may accrue irrespective of whether
    customers have a single contract or separate contracts with the same provider or commercial partners for
    these services.
                                                         34
 ---pagebreak--- 5.5.2.1. The Notifying Parties’ views
(170) The Notifying Parties submit that the Parties will not have the ability or the incentive
        to adopt a bundling strategy aimed at foreclosing rivals post-Transaction.
        As regards ability
(171) First, the Notifying Parties emphasise that the CNMC found TEF to have significant
        market power in the supply of fixed internet access (broadband) services. TEF is
        therefore subject to special rules including the replicability test (further discussed in
        paragraphs (187) to (193)). Should TEF bundle its fixed internet access services and
        the JV’s services, the replicability obligation would also apply in relation to alarm
        services and TEF would be required to guarantee the replicability of that offer in
        terms of price.148
(172) Second, according to the Notifying Parties, alarm services have very specific
        features and requirements which are well differentiated from telecommunication
        services. Therefore, it would not make sense from a commercial point of view to
        bundle these products.149 This would also be evidenced by TEF’s past […] a bundled
        product in cooperation with Securitas Direct, which was sold between 2015 and
        2018, […].150
(173) Third, the Notifying Parties submit that they do not have a significant degree of
        market power neither with respect to multiple play services nor in any plausible
        market definition related to alarm services, the latter being dominated by Securitas
        Direct, which has a market share of at least over [40-50]%.151
(174) Fourth, according to the Notifying Parties, competitors have effective counter-
        strategies available. Telecoms operators have started to developed their own security
        systems and/or have alliances with alarm services providers.152 Besides such
        alliances, alarm services providers can find partners in other sectors, e.g. banks or
        insurance companies, to facilitate the commercialisation of their services.153
        As regards incentives
(175) The Notifying Parties emphasise again that TEF would never jeopardize its position
        in the telecommunication market, which is its core business, in favour of Prosegur
        Alarmas’ presence in alarm services.154
        As regards effects
(176) The Notifying Parties argue that even if TEF adopted a bundling strategy aimed at
        foreclosing rivals post-Transaction, the replicability test would prevent TEF from
148 Form CO, paragraphs 216-221; Notifying Parties’ reply to RFI 10 of 5 February 2020, question 2;
    Notifying Parties’ reply to RFI 11 of 13 February 2020, question 5.
149 Form CO, paragraph 222.
150 Form CO, paragraph 204.
151 Form CO, paragraph 223.
152 Form CO, Annex 1.1, Table 13, pages 27-28.
153 Form CO, paragraph 223.
154 Form CO, paragraphs 226-227 and Form CO, Annex 1.1, section 3.3, pages 28-31.
                                                         35
 ---pagebreak---         launching a non-replicable offer and hence there would be no material effect on the
        market.155
5.5.2.2. The Commission’s assessment
(177) The Commission carries out two assessments in relation to possible conglomerate
        effects between:
        (a)       The provision of telecommunication and TV services, i.e., concerning the
                  markets for (i) mobile telecommunication services, (ii) fixed telephony
                  services, (iii) fixed internet access services, (iv) TV services and (v) multiple
                  play services for residential and SME customers in Spain; and
        (b)       The provision of alarm services, i.e., concerning the possible markets for (i)
                  alarm installation and maintenance and (ii) alarm monitoring and response
                  services for residential and SME customers in Spain.
(178) The first assessment consists in determining whether the Transaction would likely
        confer on the Parties the ability and incentive to leverage TEF’s strong market
        position in the telecommunication markets into the alarm services markets, and
        whether this would have a significant detrimental effect on competition in the alarm
        services markets, thus causing harm to customers.
(179) The second assessment consists in determining whether the Transaction would likely
        confer on the Parties the ability and incentive to leverage Prosegur Alarmas’ market
        position in the alarm services markets into any possible telecommunication markets,
        and whether this would have a significant detrimental effect on competition in the
        telecommunication markets, thus causing harm to customers.
(180) In relation to both assessments, the Commission focusses its analysis on the Parties’
        ability and incentive to engage in a mixed bundling strategy, i.e. incentivising the
        joint purchase of the Parties’ own products by offering higher prices for the
        standalone products as compared to the price of the bundle of telecommunication
        and alarm services. In contrast, the Commission excludes from the outset the
        possibility that the Parties would have the incentive to engage in pure bundling or
        tying practices. Considering the relatively low penetration of alarm services in Spain
        and the existence of alternatives to TEF’s telecommunication services and Prosegur
        Alarmas’ alarm services, such strategy would have a significant cost in terms of loss
        of customers and revenues in TEF’s core telecommunication business. Indeed, less
        than […]% of Spanish households currently use alarm services.156 On the one hand,
        TEF, whose main business focus are telecommunication services, would never tie its
        services to the purchase of alarm services, which have a lower penetration. On the
        other hand, in order for the tying of alarm services to be profitable, the majority of
        telecommunication customers, which have not shown to effectively value or need
        alarm services in the past, would have to start purchasing alarm services.157
        Therefore, the Commission considers that it is highly unlikely that TEF would agree
155 Notifying Parties’ reply to RFI 10 of 5 February 2020, question 2.
156 Form CO, paragraph 310.
157 The numerical analysis carried out by the Notifying Parties shows that a pure bundling strategy is
    profitable for TEF only when the majority of customers ([…]%) who are not interested in alarm services
    accept the bundle deal (Form CO, Annex 1.1, Table 14, page 30).
                                                         36
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---         Euskaltel. The market share information suggests that TEF may have a significant
        degree of market power in several telecommunications and TV markets.
(185) On this basis, several respondents to the market investigation submitted that TEF
        would be able to leverage its strong market position in several telecommunication
        and TV markets into the market for alarm services.160 These respondents feared that
        TEF would, by offering a discounted bundled product consisting of
        telecommunication and alarm services, foreclose standalone providers of alarm
        services.
(186) The Commission considers that TEF would not be able to leverage its strong market
        position in the telecommunication markets into the market for alarm services.
(187) Importantly, TEF’s ability to provide discounted bundled products is constrained by
        the applicable regulation. In the context of ex-ante regulation in the
        telecommunication sector, the CNMC identified TEF as an operator with significant
        market power in 2016.161 Consequently, TEF is subject to specific obligations,
        including, amongst others, to guarantee that its conduct does not distort competition
        and infringe article 102 TFEU and to ensure replicability of TEF’s retail broadband
        offer in terms of price. The objective of the replicability test is to assess the
        possibility of an alternative operator to replicate the retail offer of the incumbent
        operator. In March 2018, the CNMC approved a detailed methodology for turning
        the replicability obligation into a concrete test, the economic replicability test
        (“ERT”), where all the relevant revenues and costs incurred in the broadband bundle
        provision are identified, as well as other relevant information needed for the margin
        calculation, the customer life period or the identification of the flagship broadband
        bundles.162
(188) Before explaining the functioning of the ERT, it is important to note that the ERT
        applies to any components bundled with TEF’s broadband product. This obligation
        would also apply in relation to alarm services as long as the alarm services are sold
        in a package with TEF’s broadband product. In this case, TEF would be compelled
        to consider the additional costs referred to this service in a manner comparable to
        other additional components in the past.163
(189) In practice, the ERT covers the majority of TEF’s fixed telecommunication and TV
        sales. In fact, besides TEF’s […] subscribers of standalone fixed telephony services
        and […] subscribers of standalone TV services, its remaining subscribers purchase
        2P ([…]), 3P ([…]) or 4P ([…]) bundled products, which always contain a
        broadband component.164 In addition, TEF has […] subscribers of standalone mobile
        services. However, due to its product characteristics, the mobile component is less
        prone to be bundled with alarm services, which are more closely related to fixed
        telecommunication services. This was also confirmed by the market investigation.
        Respondents expect TEF to bundle Prosegur Alarmas’ alarm services with TEF’s
160 Replies to questionnaire Q2 to alarm services providers, questions 17 and 17.1; non-confidential
    submission of a competitor of Prosegur Alarmas of 13 February 2020, page 2.
161 Resolución de 24 de febrero de 2016. The resolution also defined the relevant markets (i.e., the markets
    for wholesale local access and wholesale broadband access) and the way they should be assessed.
162 Notifying Parties’ reply to RFI 10 of 5 February 2020, question 2.
163 Notifying Parties’ reply to RFI 10 of 5 February 2020, question 2.
164 Notifying Parties’ reply to RFI 10 of 5 February 2020, question 7
                                                         38
 ---pagebreak---          existing bundles, in particular its 4P bundle consisting of fixed telephony, fixed
         internet access, TV and mobile services, but not with its standalone mobile
         telecommunication services.165 As for TEF’s TV services, as mentioned, TEF has
         […] standalone TV subscribers.
(190) As for the functioning of the ERT, the CNMC regularly arranges TEF’s fibre-based
         products by number of customers (from highest number of customers to lowest) until
         reaching 80% of TEF's fibre customer base.166 All of TEF’s current flagship
         products are 4P bundles.167 The margin of each of these flagship products is
         calculated as the Net Present Value (“NPV”) of all revenues generated and costs
         incurred in the provision of the flagship bundle during the customer life period with
         a discount rate equivalent to the last WACC168 approved by CNMC. If the NPV of
         the flagship bundle is greater or equal to zero, the flagship bundle is held to be
         replicable by an alternative operator, otherwise wholesale network access service
         (“NEBA”) charges must be reduced in order to restore the economic replicability of
         the flagship bundle.169
(191) For this analysis, the following cost categories are included: commercial costs,
         broadband (wholesale regulated) costs and internal network costs. In addition,
         depending on the product bundle, the following costs for the provision of additional
         components are included: fixed telephony costs (network access and traffic), mobile
         communication costs (voice, SMS and data), audio-visual costs (content rights and
         production) and any additional component costs. The last category includes any
         other components of the bundle such as software, online content (e.g., music, books,
         games) and any other value added services (e.g., parental control, antivirus, cloud
         storage or, in the future, alarm services). The value of the additional components is
         calculated according to the acquisition costs incurred by TEF.170
(192) The ERT ensures that any product which is offered in a bundle with a broadband
         product is replicable from TEF’s various wholesale products so that (i) each of the
         telecoms element in the bundle has an associated wholesale product that is
         technically and economically replicable; and (ii) the bundle’s overall margin (i.e.,
         including telecoms elements and non-telecoms elements) is always positive.171 In
         this context, the replicability test ensures that the associated cost of the “non-
         telecoms elements” is covered by the bundle revenues. As a result of the
         methodology implemented for this replicability test, TEF would sacrifice its NEBA
         wholesale revenues if any of its offers were not replicable.
(193) The CNMC applies the test to TEF’s commercial offers at least every 6 months. This
         means that, in the hypothetical event that TEF launched a non-replicable offer, the
165 Replies to questionnaire Q1 to telecommunications operators, question 18.2.
166 These flagship products are those most commonly contracted by TEF’s customers
    (https://blog.cnmc.es/2019/05/03/test-de-replicabilidad-y-productos-emblematicos-de-que-estamos-
    hablando/). In addition, the CNMC has the ability to identify a product as “flagship” because of its
    characteristics or the high impact on the market, even if the product does not meet the 80% rule (for
    example, a new attractive product or a product that is disruptive in the market).
167 Notifying Parties’ reply to RFI 12 of 14 February 2020, question 1.
168 WACC stands for weighted average cost of capital.
169 Notifying Parties’ reply to RFI 10 of 5 February 2020, question 3, Annex 1, section 2, pages 3-5.
170 Notifying Parties’ response to RFI 10 of 5 February 2020, question 2.
171 Notifying Parties’ response to RFI 10 of 5 February 2020, question 2b.
                                                           39
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---        services and mobile telecommunication services. In the supply of TV services, they
       both have market shares in the range of 10-20%. While Orange is the market leader
       with respect to the supply of 3P bundles (about 50% market share), Vodafone and
       Orange are respectively the second (20-30%) and third largest (10-20%) suppliers of
       4P bundles after TEF with a market share of about 50%. Moreover, TEF’s market
       share in the various telecommunication and TV markets has been decreasing over
       the last three years and has further decreased in the first three quarters of 2019. 173 In
       the same period, Másmóvil has increased its market share from a de minimis position
       to [5-10]% in the supply of fixed telephony and [5-10]% in the supply of fixed
       internet access services in 2018 (and further to [5-10]% in the first three quarters of
       2019).
(198) Finally, it is important to mention that competing alarm services providers have
       effective counterstrategies available, such as entering into similar co-operations or
       proposing different kinds of bundles, if the offering of a bundled product became an
       important competitive advantage. Competitors are already employing such strategies
       today. For instance, Tyco, the third largest provider of alarm services in Spain (and
       second largest in terms of sales values), has entered into a commercial partnership
       with Orange (for more details see Table 13 below).
(199) In addition to alliances with telecommunication operators, alarm services providers
       have other alternatives to replicate any competitive advantage that the proposed JV
       may achieve thanks to a potential bundled offer. In particular, alarm operators could
       use companies from other sectors (for example, the financial sector) in order to
       increase their distribution channels and effectively compete. In fact, in June 2018,
       Securitas Direct made a commercial alliance with CaixaBank by virtue of which the
       financial entity distributes through its 4 743 distribution points of sales the alarm
       systems developed by Securitas Direct with advantageous financial conditions.
       According to the Notifying Parties, the number of distribution points owned by
       CaixaBank is significantly higher than the number of TEF’s distribution points
       ([…]). In addition, Securitas Direct has a commercial agreement with one of the
       main insurance companies in Spain, Mapfre, by virtue of which Mapfre distributes
       Securitas Direct’s alarm services.174
(200) Hence, competing alarm services providers have already started entering into
       partnerships and they can continue to team up, with telecommunication operators or
       other partners, if the provision of a bundled product should become an important
       competitive advantage.
        As regards incentives
(201) The Commission distinguishes between TEF’s incentive to engage in a mixed
       bundling strategy offering a (i) non-replicable bundled product and (ii) a replicable
       bundled offer.
(202) With regard to a non-replicable offer, the Commission considers that it is highly
       unlikely that TEF would have incentives to launch a non-replicable offer to the
       market, considering that any significant commercial offer by TEF is subject to a
173 Form CO, Annex 1.1, Table 10, pages 24-25.
174 Form CO, Annex 1.1, section 3.2.3, pages 26-28.
                                                    41
 ---pagebreak---       replicability test and that if any of TEF’s offers does not pass the test this would
      automatically lead to a significant loss in terms of reduction of TEF’s wholesale
      NEBA prices and revenues.
(203) With regard to a replicable bundled product, the Commission considers that TEF has
      not only the technical ability to offer such a product but that it is likely to have the
      incentive to offer it.
(204) First, mixed bundling strategies do not generally involve substantial costs in terms of
      customer losses and thus companies will have the incentive to undertake them to the
      extent that products are sufficiently related and have a relevant common customer
      base.
(205) Second, the recent industry trend for co-operations between telecommunication and
      alarm services providers confirm that these products can be successfully bundled, are
      sufficiently related and have a relevant common customer base. In Spain, Orange
      and Tyco have entered into a commercial agreement. In addition, several Spanish
      telecommunication service providers, such as Vodafone, Euskaltel and R, have
      developed Peace of Mind solutions. Even if the latter are not considered to be part of
      the same product market as professional alarm services (as explained in section
      4.2.1.3), bundles of telecommunication and Peace of Mind solution exert some
      competitive pressure on professional alarm services and more importantly point
      towards the same industry trend.
(206) Similar developments can be found in other European countries. Examples include
      the alarm and/or Peace of Mind solutions offered by SFR and Orange in France,
      British Telecom in the UK, and TIM in Italy. In particular, “Sicuritalia Protection
      24” was developed by TIM and the alarm services provider Sicuritalia. There are
      further examples on a worldwide level, such as alarm services offered by AT&T in
      the US.
                                                42
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---         of Prosegur Alarmas’ customers ([5-10]%) in 2018.178 This could provide an
        additional incentive for TEF to bundle its telecommunication and TV services with
        alarm services.
        As regards effects
(225) The Commission considers that TEF will neither have the ability nor the incentive to
        offer a non-replicable product bundle. However, the Commission considers that TEF
        will have both the ability and incentive to offer a replicable bundled product.
(226) The Commission considers that a mixed bundling strategy would be unlikely to
        result in a significant reduction of sales prospects by standalone rivals in the market
        leading to a reduction in rivals’ ability or incentive to compete.
(227) In particular with regard to competing telecommunication operators, the vast
        majority of their customers, currently more than […], do not purchase any alarm
        services. Even if the Parties would manage to attract additional customers, as
        estimated in Table 14, there remains a sufficiently large fraction of the market that is
        unaffected.
5.5.3. Assessment of possible leakage/misuse of information
5.5.3.1. Potential concern
(228) One respondent to the market investigation explained that TEF currently has access
        to different types of confidential and commercially sensitive information: (i)
        confidential end customer data; (ii) information derived from the provision of
        corporate telecommunication services to alarm services providers; and (iii)
        commercially sensitive or confidential data shared in the framework of commercial
        and R&D cooperation projects. The respondent expressed concerns that, following
        the Transaction, TEF could misuse this information, in particular by sharing it with
        Prosegur Alarmas, giving it an anti-competitive advantage in the alarm services
        market.179
(229) In particular, the respondent pointed to the following strategies TEF could deploy.
        First, TEF already today has access to a significant amount of personal data of its
        own customers of telecommunication services. On the one hand, it could pass this
        data on to Prosegur Alarmas, allowing it to develop new products and services
        tailored to meet each customer’s specific needs. On the other hand, TEF could use
        this data to identify the customers of alarm services providers competing with
        Prosegur Alarmas and target them with advertising or promotional campaigns to
        make them switch to the security systems provided by Prosegur Alarmas.180
(230) Second, the respondent claimed that because TEF currently provides corporate
        telecommunication services to alarm services providers, it has access to their
        corporate communications with alarm service customers (even if these are not
        themselves TEF customers). TEF could use this information to target the end
178 Notifying Parties’ reply to RFI 10 of 5 February 2020, question 3, Annex 1, section 3.1.2, pages 9-11.
179 Replies to questionnaire Q2 to alarm services providers, question 24.
180 Non-confidential submission of a competitor of Prosegur Alarmas of 13 February 2020, page 2.
                                                         46
 ---pagebreak---         customers with advertising or promotional campaigns to make them switch to the
        security systems provided by Prosegur Alarmas.181
(231) Finally, the respondent has been involved in different commercial and R&D
        cooperation projects with TEF and has shared commercially sensitive information
        and internal know-how with it in this context. While this information was covered by
        confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations, the respondent fears that post-
        Transaction, TEF would share this information with Prosegur Alarmas in order to
        strengthen their position in and exclude competitors from the market for alarm
        systems.182
(232) In this context, the Commission has assessed the potential concern that TEF would
        misuse, and in particular pass on to Prosegur Alarmas personal data of end
        customers or commercially sensitive information of competing alarm operators,
        which Prosegur Alarmas could use to favour its own position on the alarm services
        market.
5.5.3.2. Commission’s assessment
(233) The Commission notes that different considerations apply to personal data of end-
        customers and to commercially sensitive or confidential information of alarm
        operators.
(234) Regarding personal data of end-customers of telecommunication services, the
        Commission considers that the Parties would not have the ability to misuse this
        information, for the following reasons. First, if the final customer of security systems
        is not a TEF customer, but TEF provides the alarm operator with an M2M card, TEF
        is unable, from a technical point of view, to identify the customers of competing
        alarm services providers. Second, if the end customer purchases telecommunication
        services from TEF, but the alarm service it uses contains a M2M card provided by a
        different telecommunications provider, TEF would be technically unable to identify
        whether the customer has an alarm service and who the provider of such a service is.
        Finally, there are cases in which TEF provides both the telecommunication services
        of the end customer and the M2M card used by the alarm operator. In these cases,
        while under certain circumstances TEF might be able to technically identify and
        approach customers of competing suppliers, it would not have the legal ability to use
        the data for purposes that are not compatible with the original purpose for which the
        data was collected. This is because TEF has to comply with the Regulation (EU)
        2016/679183, which requires it to process data in a lawful and transparent manner and
        prevents TEF from using the personal data for other purposes that are not compatible
        with the original purpose the data was collected for.
(235) Regarding personal data of end-customers of alarm services, the Commission notes
        that while TEF provides the corporate telecommunication services to the alarm
        services providers, it does not collect the communication data between them and
        their customers.184 Moreover, the Commission notes that, according to the Notifying
181 Non-confidential submission of a competitor of Prosegur Alarmas of 13 February 2020, page 3.
182 Replies to questionnaire Q2 to alarm services providers, question 24.
183 OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1 (the “General Data Protection Regulation” or “GDPR”).
184 Notifying Parties’ reply to RFI 11 of 13 February 2020, question 8.d.
                                                         47
 ---pagebreak---         Parties, TEF has no means to know who the specific end customers of alarm services
        providers are. Therefore, the Commission considers that TEF would not have the
        ability to misuse the communication data between alarm services providers and their
        customers in order to favour Prosegur Alarmas.
(236) As for confidential and/or commercially sensitive information that TEF has received
        from competing alarm services providers in the context of cooperation projects, the
        Commission notes that such information was protected by confidentiality and/or
        non-disclosure agreements between TEF and the alarm services providers.185 These
        agreements prevent TEF from disclosing the information to third parties, during and
        even after the termination of the specific cooperation project.186 The Commission
        also notes that both PCS and Prosegur Alarmas will remain third parties post-
        Transaction. In particular, Prosegur Alarmas will remain a separate legal entity, in
        which TEF will only own 50% of the shares. The Commission therefore considers
        that the information TEF received from competing alarm services providers is
        sufficiently protected, and that TEF does not have the ability to share any
        confidential and/or commercially sensitive information with Prosegur Alarmas in
        order to strengthen their position in and exclude competitors from the market for
        alarm systems.
(237) The Commission therefore considers that TEF would not have the ability to leak or
        misuse personal data of end customers or confidential and/or commercially sensitive
        information of competing alarm operators in order to favour Prosegur Alarmas on
        the market for alarm services.
5.5.4. Conclusion
(238) In light of the above considerations and based on the results of the market
        investigation, the Commission considers that the Transaction does not raise serious
        doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market with respect to the vertical,
        conglomerate and other effects resulting from the relationship between the markets
        for the supply of security systems and the markets for the supply of
        telecommunication services.
185 Notifying Parties’ reply to RFI 12 of 17 February 2020, question 3.b and annexes 1-4.
186 Notifying Parties’ reply to RFI 12 of 17 February 2020, question 3.b and annexes 2-4.
                                                         48
 ---pagebreak--- 6.    CONCLUSION
(239) For the above reasons, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the
      notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the
      EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the
      Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.
                                                    For the Commission
                                                    (Signed)
                                                    Margrethe VESTAGER
                                                    Executive Vice-President
                                               49