Challenge

Flock, a medium sized entity, with a fledgling web-browser, reached for support in the Microsoft case. Microsoft was using its market presence to tie its web browser, Internet Explorer to its dominant client PC operating system. This led to accusations by the European Commission that it had infringed competition rules. Microsoft reacted by proposing a limit on the access of browsers with a market share higher than 0.5% by means of a ‘ballot screen’. Flock was at risk of being blocked out of the market.

Strategy

The strategy relied on turning technical and soft law instruments into political messages resonating with the European Commission’s language. It outlined that Microsoft’s solution would have amounted to an oligopoly. In doing so, it demonstrate that, by its very essence the ballot screen proposal was contrary to the European Commission’s  goal for open and competitive communications markets. We created a nexus of effective communications and activities that proved to be decisive.

Results

Alber & Geiger was able to keep its client’s innovative business services available to consumers. Microsoft consequently, had to revise its ‘ballot screen’. Its new proposed ballot screen would allow consumers to choose from a number of 12 suggested web browsers. These included Flock and other alternatives.

Challenge

The patent holder of Teflon™, US Fortune 500 chemical company Chemours, approached Alber & Geiger seeking regulatory and advocacy support over a European Union proposal that would ban all per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Those PFAS are chemicals that came under regulatory fire as being the so called “forever chemicals”, which persist in the environment. The political turbulences in the EU started in the Netherlands, continued in Italy and Germany then, until they became an EU wide regulatory initiative in Brussels.

Strategy

On the one hand we were confronted with planned PFAS bans in The Hague, Rome and Berlin which we had to politically manage with the national governments. On the other hand we saw a regulatory initiative develop in Brussels under the EU chemicals strategy. We embarked on a defense for the Chemours specific PFAS named GenX and Teflon™, based on the planned PFAS restrictions. Considering the impact of the restrictions to the supply chains of various Member States, Alber & Geiger entered into discussions with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the European Commission, the European Parliament, the EU Permanent Representations and the Member States’ Ministries of Industry and Environment.

Results

We managed to stop the national PFAS bans in The Hague, Berlin and Rome. And we aligned them with the EU initiative. There, we made EU regulators and lawmakers understand that they needed to differentiate between different PFAS, such as PFAS of high or low concern, as a liquid, gas or solid material.

Challenge

The Gauselmann Group, one of the largest producers and operators of games of chance in Europe, called on Alber & Geiger when faced with a number of threatening gambling regulations in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Netherlands, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Alber & Geiger had to convince the European Commission to make a counterintuitive political risk in confronting a powerful Member State, Germany and concurrently convince the European Commission that our interpretation would stand up to CJEU scrutiny.

Strategy

Given the limited scope of directly ascertainable EU competence, the strategy employed an abstracted analytical formula to show that the various regulations were legally incoherent. It demonstrated that the laws of the Member States contradicted their own main goals on a substantive level. It utilized the jurisprudential architecture of the CJEU in lieu of their crystallization.

The multifaceted strategy also incorporated an economic dimension. Concurrently, the same technique allowed us to demonstrate that the money laundering directive could not arbitrarily encompass all the gambling operators without distinction of risk volume and activity.

Results

Ultimately, we managed to convince the European Commission to act. Its omission to launch infringement proceedings had been rebuked. Alber & Geiger was able to safeguard fundamental liberties and freedoms by bringing EU instruments into a new field and challenging archaic but powerful structures. We were also able to hold the scope of the money laundering directive back, establishing a distinction between casinos and other gambling operators.