Price comparison platforms have become essential infrastructure for energy consumers – and now, one of the largest is being forced to change its business practices. The German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) announced earlier this week that it has accepted binding commitments from Check24 to abandon price parity clauses in its contracts with energy suppliers. The decision marks the latest enforcement action in a growing European consensus that parity clauses, in particular imposed by strong digital platforms, are incompatible with competition law. But there may also be a political dimension worth noting: In a country still grappling with the aftermath of the energy crisis, the FCO appears keen to ensure that platforms do not stand in the way of competitive energy markets.
Check24 might be known by some from making headlines during the last European Football Championship when it gave away “free” Germany-branded football jerseys in exchange for users’ personal data. According to reports, Check24 stopped the promotion after receiving around five million orders.
Apart from that, Check24 is better known as a price-comparison website. It had been imposing contractual provisions that prevented energy suppliers from offering lower prices on other comparison websites or through their own sales channels. Such provisions – known as price parity clauses, MFN clauses, or best price clauses – have become a flashpoint in European competition enforcement (and an evergreen on this blog, see here, here and here).
Platform power and spotlight
The numbers tell the story of Check24’s market position: According to the FCO press release, around 57% of new gas and electricity supply contracts in Germany are concluded via online intermediary services, with Check24 accounting for 60 to 70% of those contracts. This apparently makes Check24 the most important sales channel for energy suppliers looking to acquire new customers – and gives the platform enormous leverage over pricing in a sector that touches every German household.
Under the commitments now accepted by the FCO, Check24 will no longer use price parity clauses and cannot make its contractual relationship or commission amounts dependent on energy suppliers’ pricing on other sales channels. The commitments also prohibit “dimming” – the practice of reducing a supplier’s visibility or search ranking simply because it does not offer price parity. This has emerged as a key concern in recent enforcement actions, including the Spanish competition regulator’s EUR 413 million fine against Booking.com in July 2024.
The energy policy dimension
The timing of the FCO announcement and its focus on the energy sector may not be coincidental. It comes shortly after the FCO published its recent report on the conditions of competition in the generation of electricity (Market Power Report) according to which the market power of Germany’s leading electricity producers has increased significantly.
Germany’s energy markets have been under intense political scrutiny since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered an unprecedented energy crisis. While prices have stabilized, affordability remains a live political issue. In 2024 alone, 7.1 million German electricity customers switched suppliers, a new all-time high, reflecting both consumer engagement and the continued importance of competitive pressure on pricing.
Comparison websites like Check24 seem to have become essential infrastructure for this switching behavior. FCO President Andreas Mundt acknowledged as much: “Comparison websites make it easier for consumers to switch suppliers, which has a generally pro-competitive effect.” But he emphasized that “it is important that there is also effective competition between comparison websites themselves, and between comparison websites and other sales channels.” The concern is clear: When a particularly strong comparison platform locks in price parity, it may neutralize the very competitive dynamics it purports to facilitate.
This places the Check24 case squarely within the broader political debate about Germany’s energy transition. The so-called “Energiewende” depends not just on infrastructure investment, but on functioning retail markets where consumers can access competitive pricing. According to the FCO, platforms that restrict price competition threaten both goals.
Platform crackdown!?
The Check24 case also fits into a broader pattern of enforcement against platform pricing practices. Just three weeks earlier, the FCO prohibited Amazon from using price control mechanisms that influenced third-party seller pricing on its German marketplace, ordering the disgorgement of EUR 59 million in economic benefits – the first such order since the regulator gained these powers in 2023. While the Amazon case concerned downward price pressure rather than parity clauses, the underlying concern is identical: Platforms using their (alleged) market position to control pricing across their ecosystems.
As Mundt noted in the Check24 context: “When a company attempts to influence the pricing of its contractual partners, this routinely raises competition law concerns – especially if that company is a leading provider.” The message to platform operators across all sectors is clear: Whether you are enforcing price parity through contractual clauses, algorithmic dimming, or visibility penalties, the FCO is watching and willing to act.
Looking Forward
The Check24 case reinforces several key points:
- First, parity clauses are presumptively problematic for market-leading intermediaries – and “dimming” or other equivalents will be treated the same way.
- Second, the energy sector is not exempt from digital platform enforcement. If anything, its political salience may attract additional scrutiny.
- Third, the FCO’s willingness to accept commitments rather than pursuing formal prohibition decisions suggests opportunities for negotiated resolutions.
More broadly, the Check24 case illustrates the convergence of competition and energy policy in Germany. In a market where consumers are being urged to switch suppliers to bring down household costs, a platform that seems to foreclose price competition runs counter to fundamental policy objectives. As Mundt put it: “Providers of intermediary services should therefore review their contractual terms carefully.” In the current enforcement climate, that is not a suggestion – it is a warning.
Photo from Feisan VM on Unsplash
Antitrustpolitics.com 