Instead of protecting competition, the CPC declares war on it

If you've been following the media in recent days, you've probably come across the extremely high-profile story surrounding the latest ruling by the Commission for the Protection of Competition (CPC). A ruling that sets a very dangerous precedent that, instead of "protecting" competition, actually tramples on it and threatens the interests of consumers. Let's briefly review what exactly happened.

The CPC has decided to impose a fine of around 47 thousand leva on the company "Laptop.BG" for the fact that the vlogger Dimitar Kozhuharov (under the pseudonym Noobcleaver; pictured above) published a video in which he expressed a highly critical opinion against one of their competitors on their website - evarna.bg. The fine was imposed after a complaint was filed by "Golden Green Stone Group", which is the company that owns evarna.com. The CPC's motive for imposing the fine is that "Laptop.BG" benefited from the negative review that Kozhuharov gave to their competitor. Does that sound absurd to you? Because it is.

The potential consequences of this CPC decision may not be obvious at first glance, but in reality they are extremely dangerous. In short, the main problems with this commission's ruling are three:

• First, it directly threatens the rights of consumers by practically implying that they cannot freely express their negative opinion about one or another manufacturer/product.
• Secondly, the decision demonstrates a total misunderstanding of what market competition actually means and threatens its existence.
• Third, it threatens the development and very existence of a nascent industry in Bulgaria – gaming vlogging and streaming.

Don't users have the right to express an opinion?

The CPC decision directly attacks the basic principle on which market competition is built. Namely, the fundamental right of every consumer to express his opinion regarding the products offered on the market. Whether the consumer will express his opinion tacitly, simply by not buying those products he does not like (or from those manufacturers he does not like) or explicitly, by recommending to other consumers products and manufacturers he is satisfied with, is irrelevant. The consumer is fully within his right to express his opinion about a given product in both ways.

Dimitar Kozhuharov is exactly such a user. A user who is dissatisfied with the quality of services on a certain website, in this case evarna.com. I will not comment on the quality of the products and services offered by this website (at least because I have never been their customer), but I categorically support Kozhuharov's right to express his opinion. When the CPC imposes a fine on "Laptop.bg" for Kozhuharov criticizing their competitor, it is practically telling us that consumers do not have the right to freely express their opinion on the quality of products and services offered on the market. This directly threatens the rights of every consumer on the market.

Does the CPC know what the word "competition" means?

Furthermore, the idea that expressing consumer opinion could somehow constitute an "unfair advantage" for one manufacturer over another is patently absurd. This is the very essence of market competition. It is obvious that products that consumers find better will enjoy an "advantage" over others. Isn't that the whole idea of competition? Products that consumers find good win their sympathy (and money), and those that consumers find bad lose it. THIS is the meaning of market competition. This is the competition that the CPC is supposed to protect. But in reality, it seems that the state agency is protecting something entirely different.

In this case, it simply seems that instead of protecting competition, the CPC is protecting the interests of one specific company on the market - "Golden Green Stone Group". Its competitor is being fined because a consumer chose it over it. This is far from "protecting" competition. Quite the opposite. This is promoting the interests of one company over those of others, and what is even more important, over those of consumers. And just think for a moment how absurd it is that as a manufacturer you can be fined because consumers were more satisfied with you than with one of your competitors. Since when is being a more competitive manufacturer a crime?

In practice, the CPC's decision in this case leads to the conclusion that companies in Bulgaria must take care not only of their own good name, but also of the good name of their competitors on the market. Which is completely absurd – competition is expressed precisely in the attempts of a given company to convince consumers that other companies in the same sector are not as good as it. The CPC practically turns the positive opinion of consumers about a given company into something bad. Now every company will have to be careful that its customers do not praise it too much, especially if they are critical of its competitors.

Does vlogging have a future in such a regulatory environment?

Here we come to the third, perhaps most serious, problem. With this decision, the CPC threatens the development and very existence of a nascent industry in Bulgaria – that of gaming streaming and vlogging. In recent years, gaming streaming and vlogging have become increasingly popular all over the world and are now starting to seriously enter Bulgaria. These vloggers and streamers rely to a very large extent on the sponsorship of certain hardware companies, whose products they promote in their videos. Does the CPC decision mean that as a vlogger you can no longer promote your sponsor's products against those of other manufacturers? Does it mean that if you do so, your sponsor can be fined?

What about product reviews? Many gaming vloggers regularly review different types of gaming hardware and peripherals. In these reviews, they evaluate the quality of various hardware products and, based on their impressions, recommend one or another product to their viewers. Does the CPC's decision mean that vloggers can no longer review products, especially if they are negative?

Here you may wonder why I am talking about vloggers as victims, since in this case it was not a vlogger who was fined, but a certain company. The problem is that the company in question is a sponsor of the vlogger in question. And if such companies are fined for the fact that the individuals they sponsor publicly express their negative assessments of their competitors' products, then in the future they will seriously consider whether to sponsor such vloggers at all. If the decision of the CPC is confirmed, it could lead to a mass withdrawal of sponsors from the nascent vlogging and streaming industry in Bulgaria. This would deprive vloggers in our country of their most important source of funding.

Conclusion

As you can see, the consequences of the CPC's insane decision are extremely dangerous, no matter how you look at it. On the one hand, it demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the importance of the process of market competition. Instead of "protecting" competition, the commission does exactly the opposite - it undermines it by practically giving protection to one manufacturer on the market, sanctioning its competitor.

On the other hand, the decision directly threatens the interests of consumers by practically implying that they do not have the right to freely express their opinion. And to top it off, on the third, the decision of the CPC may lead to the destruction of a nascent industry in Bulgaria in its infancy. An industry that is extremely popular among the young population and that is developing at a rapid pace in the West. In general, such decisions seriously question the meaning of the existence of the CPC.

Image source: Noobcleaver Gaming YouTube channel

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!