- Status
- Settlement finally approved (settled-final)
- As of
- 25 Feb 2014 · read from the court record
- Court
- Autorité de la concurrence · Regulatory or administrative court
- Docket
- 14-D-04 (saisine 12/0001 F)
- Filed
- 2 Jan 2012
- Type
- Regulator v. operator, antitrust and competition cases
- Money
- No settlement fund or award on record
- Payout
- No payout exists as of 14 Nov 2026
Status words follow the court record: a complaint states one side's allegations, only the court's orders decide anything. Filing a settlement claim is always free.
What this case is about
Betclic complained in January 2012 that PMU, holder of the retail horse-betting monopoly, pooled the stakes of its online horse bets with its vastly larger retail pools, giving online punters higher liquidity than any licensed competitor could offer. The Autorité accepted PMU's commitments (October 2013, revised January 2014) to separate its online pool from its other channels and closed the case. PMU's later breach of commitment no. 1 led to the 2020 fine annulled by the Cour d'appel in 2021 (GL-FR-0007), and the same conduct grounded Betclic's damages action (GL-FR-0006).
What this case is about
The Autorité de la concurrence decided case 14-D-04 on 25 February 2014, accepting commitments from the GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU) after a complaint by Betclic Everest Group. The complaint was registered on 2 January 2012 as saisine 12/0001F.
Betclic argued that PMU, holder of the retail horse-betting monopoly, pooled the stakes of its online horse bets with its far larger retail pools. That gave online punters higher liquidity than any licensed competitor could offer.
The case is one of the antitrust and competition lawsuits in gambling. The legal basis was Art. 102 TFEU and Code de commerce art. L. 420-2 (abuse of dominant position), with commitments under art. L. 464-2 I.
Who is covered
This is a competition proceeding, not a class action. The parties are Betclic Everest Group as complainant and PMU as the company under review. The commitments affect PMU's online horse-betting business and the licensed competitors who compete with it.
PMU's other cases are listed on the GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain Lawsuits page.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case. The Autorité accepted commitments and closed the complaint without a penalty, and the record shows no fine, no fund and no claim process for players.
What the court decided
The Autorité issued a preliminary assessment on 4 October 2013. PMU offered commitments on 28 October 2013 and revised them on 22 and 28 January 2014 and at the hearing of 29 January 2014.
In decision 14-D-04 of 25 February 2014, article 1 accepted the commitments and made them binding. Under them PMU separates its online pool from its other channels. Article 2 closed saisine 12/0001F.
As of 14 November 2026 the case is closed on that basis. Later events came in separate proceedings. PMU's breach of commitment no. 1 led to a 2020 fine that the Cour d'appel annulled in 2021, and the same conduct grounded Betclic's damages action.
Why it matters
The decision shows a competition authority fixing a market-structure problem by commitments, not by a fine. It also began a chain of cases, from the 2020 sanction to Betclic's damages claim, that tests whether the commitments were kept.
Read it with other cases in Gambling Lawsuits in France. For the wider group of cases, see Antitrust and Competition Lawsuits in Gambling.
Questions people ask
What did PMU promise to do?
PMU committed to separate its online horse-betting pool from its other channels. The Autorité accepted and made those commitments binding on 25 February 2014.
Was PMU fined in this decision?
No. The Autorité accepted commitments and closed the complaint. The later 2020 fine came in a separate proceeding and was annulled by the Cour d'appel in 2021.
Why did Betclic complain?
Betclic argued that PMU's pooling of online and retail stakes gave online punters higher liquidity than any licensed competitor could offer.
Related cases
- Betclic Enterprises Ltd c/ GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain: Betclic's damages action over the pooling, status judgment.
- GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain c/ Autorité de la concurrence (décision n° 20-D-07): the EUR 900,000 sanction that was reformed, status judgment.
- Zeturf Ltd v Premier ministre, Case C-212/08: the CJEU case on the French horse-betting monopoly, status judgment.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: Betclic Everest Group (complainant); Autorité de la concurrence
| Defendants | GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain |
|---|---|
| Claims |
|
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case as of 14 Nov 2026.
What happens next
No future date is on the record we hold. The case is closed on the record we hold; later appeals or enforcement steps would be added here.
Timeline
2 dated steps on record, oldest first. Future dates come from court notices and can move.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2 Jan 2012 | Filed |
| 25 Feb 2014 | Settlement finally approved |
Documents and sources
1 primary source (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 0 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Docket: autoritedelaconcurrence.fr
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision text: commitments accepted, saisine 12/0001F closed; Décision n° 14-D-04 du 25 février 2014; saisine of Betclic Everest Group registered 2 Jan 2012 as 12/0001F; preliminary assessment 4 Oct 2013, PMU commitments 28 Oct 2013 revised 22 and 28 Jan 2014 and at the hearing of 29 Jan 2014; art. 1: commitments accepted and made binding; art. 2: 'La saisine enregistrée sous le numéro 12/0001F est close' | autoritedelaconcurrence.fr | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
3 cases in the record share parties, claims or a settlement with this one.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Cour d'appel de Paris finds PMU abused its dominance 2010-2015 (Betclic damages claim) | Cour d'appel de Paris, Pôle 5 chambre 4 (pourvoi rejected by Cour de cassation, chambre commerciale, 14 Oct 2020, n° 18-24.221) | Judgment entered |
| PMU gets its EUR 900,000 commitments fine quashed | Cour d'appel de Paris, Pôle 5 chambre 7 (on appeal from Autorité de la concurrence) | Judgment entered |
| CJEU Zeturf: France's PMU horse-betting monopoly can be justified if coherent | Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber), reference from the Conseil d'État, France | Judgment entered |
Last checked against the sources on 14 Nov 2026. Found an error? Tell us and we correct the record with a dated note.