CADE’s General Superintendence concluded the German group engaged in seed technology marketing that hindered competition.
The General Superintendence of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE), Brazil's antitrust watchdog, has recommended that German multinational Bayer be found liable for anticompetitive conduct. CADE’s Administrative Tribunal will issue the final ruling. Bayer denies any wrongdoing.
The case involves Monsanto Company, Monsanto do Brasil Ltda., Bayer Aktiengesellschaft and Bayer S.A. The investigation opened in 2018, after the antitrust watchdog received complaints while reviewing Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto.
The General Superintendence, which handles CADE’s investigations into anticompetitive conduct, based its findings on documents, contracts, statements from market participants, information from complainants, and economic and legal opinions. It concluded that Bayer held a dominant market position and that its conduct harmed competition.
“Certain practices adopted by the companies produced, or were capable of producing, market foreclosure effects and hindered the activities of competitors,”
CADE said in a statement.
The authority scrutinized Bayer’s practice of granting incentives tied to improvements in its Intacta RR2PRO biotechnology, as well as the Monsoy Multiplica program, which rewards seed multipliers.
“These practices helped reinforce barriers to entry and hinder the expansion of rivals, reducing competition in markets that are essential to the operation of Brazil’s soybean agribusiness,”
the General Superintendence said.
CADE also looked into a possible contractual requirement to purchase a minimum volume of seeds but found no such condition existed, recommending that part of the case be dismissed. Bayer said in a statement that it is confident its commercial practices did not violate competition law.
“Bayer has always acted in strict compliance with the law and fully cooperated with CADE, providing all the information requested throughout the proceedings. The company remains confident that this administrative proceeding will confirm that its commercial practices did not constitute any antitrust violation,”
it said.
Soybean producers welcomed the General Superintendence’s recommendation. Aprosoja Mato Grosso called for the case to be wrapped up promptly, arguing that intellectual property rights should not be used to foreclose markets.
Compensation for technology should not restrict farmers’ access to competing options, the association said in a statement. “A technology should win over producers based on its agronomic performance, cost-effectiveness and suitability to the conditions of each farm,” it said.
Aprosoja Brasil called the General Superintendence’s opinion significant and defended what it described as “technological freedom.”
“The central issue is not a particular company or a specific technology, but ensuring that Brazilian farmers have access to a genuinely competitive market, with the freedom to choose among different technologies, breeders and commercial models,”
the association said.
Source: Valor International
