The Competition Appeal Tribunal in the United Kingdom has upheld the findings of the antitrust watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), regarding the pricing practices of U.S.-based walkie-talkie manufacturer Motorola Solutions (MSI.N).
The CMA announced on Friday that it had found Motorola Solutions guilty of overcharging the UK’s emergency services for its radio network, Airwave.
Motorola had appealed the CMA’s decision, arguing that the antitrust regulator had made errors in its assessment of the profitability of the Airwave Network and its competition within the relevant market.
However, the tribunal dismissed Motorola’s appeal, affirming the CMA’s findings.
In 2016, Motorola Solutions acquired Airwave, a private mobile radio communications network used by police, fire, ambulance, and other emergency services for secure communication.
With the new Emergency Services Network not expected to be ready for a switchover until at least 2026, and possibly as late as 2029, emergency services had no alternative to relying on Airwave.
The CMA’s decision ensures that UK emergency services will pay a fair price for Airwave services, resulting in an annual reduction of nearly £200 million (approximately $254.52 million) in costs.
In July, the CMA had imposed a price cap to bring the pricing in line with what would be expected in a competitive market.
Motorola Solutions expressed strong disagreement with the decision, warning that it could have a negative impact on long-term investments in the UK.
A company spokesperson stated, “Motorola Solutions remains committed to vigorously protecting its contractual position and we are considering all options, including our intent to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.”
In summary, the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal has upheld the CMA’s findings that Motorola Solutions overcharged UK emergency services for its Airwave network.
The decision is expected to result in significant cost savings for the emergency services, but Motorola Solutions is considering further legal action in response to the ruling, citing concerns about the impact on its investments in the UK.