The ACCC considers that certain behaviours, including anti-competitive agreements and abuse of market power, are so detrimental to consumer welfare and the competition process that the ACCC will always consider them an enforcement priority. This is an area that the ACCC is actively studying and imposing. The ACCC can close an investigation through administrative management (for example. (b) the obligation of the person concerned), a judicial obligation, a notification of an offence or a legal action.  They are vertically integrated not only by ownership, but also by other forms of vertical governance, such as contractual vertical restrictions, for example.B. In examining the competitive environment of the agreements, the Commission found that the interdependent structure of the industry and its integration of the functions of supply, manufacturing, distribution and disposal through outlets were “interconnected for efficiency purposes”.  It found that there is “competition between the entire operation of a business and another business and is only felt in the market at the time of the final sale” and that others than large refineries place little room for competition.  It found that the system as a whole reduced pressure on large refineries as suppliers, reduced the opportunities for an independent wholesaler to enter the market, and directly affected competition in the retail market.  This is mainly due to the fact that government planning controls have given gas stations a shortage that reinforces the level of concern caused by exclusivity operations.
 The Commission has characterized the linked distributors as “pipes” for branded products and each brand advertising site, which is strategically placed to compete with other brands and provides products under the same control as the manufacturer directly sells itself, without “the disadvantages of an employer-employee relationship”.  It is possible that, had the product been less homogeneous, the Commission would have considered intra-brand competition to be greater.  The Commission`s finding here illustrates the value of analyzing the effects of vertical restrictions on competition, given the extent to which functional levels are vertically interconnected and linked, particularly for reasons of efficiency. The Commission found that the competition sector in question existed at the multi-brand level. Thus, the reduction in intra-brand competition has been reduced by characterizing downstream distributors as brand tubes and not as victims of anti-competitive practices. This approach allowed the Commission to focus on the main risks arising from the usual vertical restrictions imposed on gas station owners, namely the effects of silos of other brands on retail competition. Has the Authority made any decisions regarding the steps taken by suppliers to enforce the terms of selective distribution agreements where such measures are aimed at preventing unauthorized buyers from being sold or sold by authorized buyers in an unauthorized manner? Have decisions or guidelines on vertical restrictions been made in any way in the treatment of different types of online sales channels? In particular, have there been developments with respect to “platform bans”? Take, for example, the franchise agreement. As a structure characterized by vertical restrictions that are close to full vertical integration, “it lies between anonymous price exchange and centralized intra-company employment.”  Thus, the definition of the franchisee as a separate business and not as part of the franchisor is a legal and non-economic distinction and, like the economic concept of “society,” it has no clear limits.   In other words, “producers should not be prevented from adopting vertical restrictions because the interests of the producer in this area are identical to those of consumers”: ibid.: