The owner of a logistics asset may be forced by competition law to give third parties access to and be able to use the asset.

Published: 22 January 2026
Author: Kiran Desai

Urban delivery infrastructure—locker networks, micro-fulfilment centres, and reverse logistics hubs—is emerging as a competitive battleground. When dominant players control these facilities, questions arise about access for competitors. The “essential facilities” doctrine, though applied sparingly, could gain traction if exclusionary practices hinder market entry. Regulators may require non-discriminatory access to such infrastructure, particularly where public funding or subsidies are involved.

This possibility is a result of an expansion in the concept of abuse of a dominant position in the court judgement Android Auto (ECJ, Case C-233/23). As applied to logistics assets, if the asset was developed and is used by the owner and, by agreement, some third parties, then if use of the logistics assets by other third parties is “more attractive” to those third parties’ customers, those third parties could claim the right to use the asset.

One consequence of this result is that vertically integrated companies—like retailers who own their logistics operations but also let third parties use those assets (for example, reverse logistics facilities)—might be required to offer access to any third party, even direct competitors. The main challenge then would be in determining the specific terms and conditions for such access. This potential outcome may make logistics asset owners stop and think about whether to share use of those assets, which likely affects the economics of a new asset build proposal.