{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02404809619238477, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002004008016032064, 'mean_word_length': 5.445161290322581, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
JURISDICTION IN INSURANCE MATTERS AND THE “WEAKER PARTY”

reasoning on this point, noting the requirement for “sufficiently reliable and robust experience” to justify a finding of a restriction by object, adding (at [79]) that the information relied on by the HCA, the Hungarian Government and the Commission, primarily the HCA’s decisional practice and EU case law, demonstrated “as things currently stand” the need to conduct a detailed effects analysis, including consideration of the counterfactual. This aspect of the case is likely to have ramifications well beyond the card payment sector, where competition authorities are using novel theories of harm to challenge types of agreement that have not previously been accepted as inherently anti-competitive. Absent evidence of a clear economic consensus, a consistent line of competition authority practice or case law precedent, Budapest Bank means that it is likely to be difficult to characterise such agreements as a restriction by object.