In this matter, martinsdelima acted as an independent economic expert in a competition dispute arising from the wholesale marketing of premium audiovisual rights organized through a public and competitive procedure. The controversy was framed as an accusation of abuse of dominant position and practices with exclusionary effect in a particularly sensitive market: access to high-value audiovisual content by operators interested in its exploitation.

The case had a first aspect clearly “on file”: the detailed analysis of the tender procedure, its bases, the requirements demanded, and the way in which the offers were evaluated. Our work focused on whether the process had been transparent, non-discriminatory, and based on objective criteria, and on how the documentary incidents detected in the offers of one of the bidders were managed.

The second aspect was procedural: after the bidding process, the controversy escalated to a scenario of claim and counterclaim, in which an attempt was made to turn a technical discussion (compliance with bases, corrections, and award criteria) into a narrative of anti-competitive exclusion. In that context, our report proved key to organizing the facts, separating the legal from the economic aspects, and providing the procedure with a verifiable and economically coherent account.

One of the most decisive points was to demonstrate, with documentation and economic logic, that the alleged exclusion did not respond to arbitrariness, but to breaches and contingencies in the offer itself and to the strict application of common rules for all candidates. In other words: what was relevant was not “who” presented the offer, but whether it met the conditions of the tender and whether its proposal was the best according to the bases.

At the competition level, we rigorously addressed three fronts: relevant market, dominant position, and evidence of abusive conduct. We refuted overly narrow definitions of the geographic market, highlighting that marketing and the ability to submit offers are not automatically limited to the national scope when there is international demand and exploitation; and we critically reviewed the criteria used to infer market power and exclusionary effects.

Methodologically, the work was structured as a critical analysis of the opposing party’s expert report:

(i) reconstruction of relevant facts and communications;

(ii) economic validation of the reasons for rejection/award;

(iii) contrast with competition standards and economic rationality; and

(iv) exhaustive review of the quantification of the damage and its methodology, including the possibility of proposing an alternative approach if necessary.

The result was a solid technical position that allowed us to sustain the defense with objective, verifiable arguments aligned with a competitive process, decisively reinforcing the economic credibility of the case.