The Competition Authority's Commissioner announced today (Wednesday) that Shufersal, owned by the Amir brothers, has been ordered to impose a financial sanction of more than 8 million shekels on it, following its failure to respond to data transfer demands.
The Competition Authority explained that the demand was forwarded to Shufersal and other companies in the food industry, as part of a study examining the structure of costs and prices in the Israeli food market.
However, the information that Shufersal provided did not include all the required data - and especially not the chain's operating expenses.
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
Despite repeated requests from the authority, Shufersal claimed that the requested data did not exist. However, a later check revealed that the information was in the company's possession, and it was eventually provided.
After a hearing was held for Shufersal, in which it presented its arguments, the commissioner decided to reject the explanations and impose the fine.
The Competition Authority emphasized that the law gives it the authority to demand data from business entities, and that receiving complete, accurate, and timely information is a necessary condition for its work - whether for enforcement purposes, merger review, or market research.
According to the Competition Authority, delay or non-cooperation harms the public interest and constitutes a violation of the Economic Competition Law.
The Competition Commissioner stated: "Non-cooperation on the part of entities that are required to respond to data requests may harm the reliability of the findings and conclusions derived from the Authority's inspections and harm the broader public interest, and constitutes a violation of the Competition Law.".
Shufersal responded: "Shufersal acts in accordance with all laws. The company receives numerous data requests from the Competition Authority, provides it with huge amounts of data on an ongoing basis, and cooperates fully. This was also the case in question, and therefore the company believes that there is no basis for liability. The company intends to file an appeal against the Authority's decision in the Competition Court.".
