2.7 How are vertical agreements analyzed if one of the parties is vertically integrated at the same level as the other part (so-called « double distribution »)? Are these agreements treated as vertical or horizontal agreements? Section 34 (2) of the Act provides examples of the types of agreements that may fall within the scope of this prohibition. In particular, paragraph 34, paragraph 2 of the Act states that concerted agreements, decisions or practices have the purpose or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within Singapore when they are: 27.2.14 The fact that the market shares of the parties to an agreement exceed the thresholds covered in Section 27.2.13 does not mean that the effect of this agreement on competition is substantial. The other factors mentioned in 27212 are also taken into account. However, an agreement on price-fixing, supply manipulation, market distribution or production restrictions is still considered a significant disadvantage to competition, despite the fact that the market shares held by the parties may be below the thresholds set at 27.2.13 or even where the parties to these agreements are all SMEs (Re Price Fixing of Rates of Modelling Services in Singapore by Modelling Agccies  SGC 11; (Re Collusive Tendering (Bid-Rigging) in electrical and construction work  SGCCS 4; CSC infringement decision with respect to tenders for the provision of electrical services for the award of intermediate supplies for Formula 1 and the provision of asset tagging services to GEMS Tender: CCS 700/003/15). 27.2.18 Agreements are excluded from the prohibition and conduct of Section 34 of the Section 47 prohibition, as long as they lead to a merger. Similarly, agreements and practices directly related to the implementation of mergers (these agreements and practices are called « incidental restrictions ») are also excluded from Section 34 of the prohibition and Section 47 prohibition. 4.1 Please describe and comment on anything in your jurisdiction (or not covered above) with respect to vertical agreements and dominant companies. Related/complementary obligations would be reviewed in the same way as vertical restrictions. For example, a company that exploits its dominant position in one market to try to establish itself in another market where it is not dominant by connecting products could violate the section 47 ban.
27.1.8 CCCS also issued, on 1 December 2016, a statement of practice on the expedited procedure for section 34 and section 47 cases, as well as a guide to give airlines, on 5 September 2018, more clarity on the competitive evaluation of airline alliance agreements. Selective distribution agreements include an agreement between a product manufacturer and a retailer, which is therefore qualified as a vertical agreement under Singapore competition law.  As vertical agreements are excluded from the anti-competitive provision of the Competition Act , product manufacturers are legally allowed to implement selective distribution programmes in the region.