OPAP Contests €24.5m Greek Fine for EU Competition Rule Breach

The fine stems from complaints filed by the Hellenic Cooperative of Professional Lotteries, accusing OPAP of unfairly implementing non-compete clauses between 2017 and 2022. These alleged actions were deemed to have contravened legislation on free market competition.

The fine stems from complaints filed by the Hellenic Cooperative of Professional Lotteries, accusing OPAP of unfairly implementing non-compete clauses between 2017 and 2022. These alleged actions were deemed to have contravened legislation on free market competition.

The HGC's decision, viewed as a breach of both Greek and EU fair competition standards, accused OPAP of violating Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. These articles pertain to unfair pricing, restricted equipment distribution, and imposing unjust conditions on transactions.

As a consequence of these infractions, the HGC imposed a fine of €10,000 for each day that the violations were deemed to have occurred, resulting in a total penalty of €24.5 million.

OPAP has taken a firm stance against this decision, arguing that the fine was levied on its core gambling business, rather than the services provided by its agencies, such as bill payments and mobile top-up services. The company also contended that the HGC did not adequately consider data from the Bank of Greece regarding the payment services rendered by its retail agents.

In a statement, OPAP expressed its position, asserting, "The company respects the institutional role of independent administrative authorities, including the Hellenic Competition Commission. Yet, it strongly disagrees with the content of the decision, which it considers fully baseless. [HGC’s] decision, which was not unanimous, does not relate to the company’s core business in the gaming market, but has to do with bill payment services and mobile top-up services offered by its agencies."

OPAP's robust disagreement with the fine showcases the company's commitment to defending its position in the face of what it deems an unjust penalty. The case now stands as a focal point in the ongoing discourse surrounding competition regulations within the gaming industry.

By fLEXI tEAM