Swedish Competition Authority imposes fines and prohibits exclusivity clauses in niche medical advisory market
On 19 March 2026, the Swedish Competition Authority (the ”SCA”) issued a decision finding that Mavera AB (”Mavera”, now rebranded as Verisk Analytics AB), an intermediary provider of insurance medical advisory services, had abused its dominant position. The SCA found that Mavera had entered into exclusivity agreements with insurance medical advisers (mainly specialist doctors advising insurance companies), preventing them from accepting assignments from competing intermediaries and thereby hindering market entry and expansion. The exclusivity clauses had been applied since 1 January 2021 and were still in force at time of the decision.
In its decision the SCA imposed a competition fine of SEK 14.3 million (approx. EUR 1.3 million). The SCA also ordered Mavera to cease applying the exclusivity clauses, subject to a conditional fine of SEK 30 million (approx. EUR 2.75 million)
Please see the SCA’s English summary of the decision here.
Background
Mavera was founded in 2008 and provides digital intermediary services for insurance medical advisory assessments. The company engages insurance medical advisers across a range of medical specialisations and operates a digital case management system through which the advisers’ opinions are delivered. Mavera’s customers include mainly insurance companies but also claims management companies and public authorities.
According to the SCA, Mavera had for several years been the sole provider of intermediary services for insurance medical advice in Sweden and therefore held a monopoly position on the market. In 2020, a competing intermediary, Opsy, entered the market. Shortly thereafter, Mavera introduced exclusivity clauses in its agreements with advisers, preventing them from accepting assignments from competing intermediaries.
The SCA’s decision
Following a complaint submitted by Opsy in January 2023, the SCA initiated an investigation into whether Mavera infringed the prohibition on abuse of a dominant position under Chapter 2, Section 7 of the Swedish Competition Act and Article 102 TFEU.
The SCA defined the relevant market as the market for the intermediation of insurance medical advisory services in Sweden, including the provision of advisers’ opinions through a digital case management system. The authority concluded that Mavera had held a dominant position on that market since at least 2020. According to the SCA, Mavera’s market share ranged between 95 and 99 per cent during the relevant period, and the authority also pointed to significant barriers to entry and expansion.
The SCA found that Mavera had entered into exclusivity agreements with all, or almost all, available advisers within several medical specialist fields. As competitors were consequently unable to engage these advisers, the exclusivity clauses were considered capable of foreclosing competitors from the market and making entry and expansion significantly more difficult.
The SCA therefore concluded that Mavera had abused its dominant position by applying exclusivity clauses that restricted competition through means other than competition on the merits. The conduct was not considered objectively justified.
Mavera’s appeal
On 8 April 2026, Mavera appealed the SCA’s decision to the Patent and Market Court. According to publicly available information, Mavera argues, among other things, that the relevant market has been defined too narrowly, and that the company does not hold a dominant position, pointing to the large number of available doctors and the ability of insurance companies to contract directly with advisers rather than through an intermediary. Mavera further argues that there are low barriers to entry, that insurance companies exercise countervailing buyer power, and that the exclusivity clauses do not constitute abuse.
Mavera has also reportedly argued that the agreements fall within the scope of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation. Mavera additionally requested interim relief in respect of the SCA’s order to cease applying the exclusivity clauses, arguing that immediate compliance would cause serious and irreversible harm. The Patent and Market Court rejected that request on 17 April 2026 in a decision that is not subject to appeal.
Concluding remarks
The case is one of the more significant Swedish abuse of dominance decisions in recent years and illustrates the SCA’s continued focus on exclusionary conduct involving exclusivity arrangements and foreclosure of competitors.
The forthcoming court proceedings are likely to be of considerable interest, not least regarding the assessment of dominance on narrowly defined markets and the interaction between Article 102 TFEU and vertical agreements otherwise potentially falling within the scope of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation. Delphi will continue to monitor developments in the case.