DOCSLIB.ORG

Predatory Pricing: Limiting Brooke Group to Monopolies and Sound Implementation of Price-Cost Comparisons Aaron S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Predatory Pricing: Limiting Brooke Group to Monopolies and Sound Implementation of Price-Cost Comparisons Aaron S THE YALE LAW JOURNAL FORUM J UNE 4, 2018 Predatory Pricing: Limiting Brooke Group to Monopolies and Sound Implementation of Price-Cost Comparisons Aaron S. Edlin abstract. C. Scott Hemphill and Philip Weiser point out several infirmities of the Brooke Group predatory pricing decision, including the fact that the Supreme Court laid down the be- low-cost pricing and recoupment requirements without hearing either party present counterar- guments to them. In light of this fact and complex market realities, they argue for flexibility in satisfying these requirements. In this Response, I go further, arguing that in monopoly cases the greatest competitive danger likely results from above-cost pricing, so the Brooke Group safe har- bor for above-cost pricing should not have been extended to monopolies. When price-cost tests are implemented, I show that many cost measures other than average variable cost can be appro- priate to demonstrate profit sacrifice. introduction Twenty-five years a�er Brooke Group,1 it is a good time to take stock of its holding. I am pleased that C. Scott Hemphill and Philip Weiser have decided to do so in a terrific Feature.2 Brooke Group presented an oligopoly case among to- bacco companies in which the defendant was alleged to be guilty of predatory pricing. The Court held that to find a defendant guilty of predatory pricing, a plaintiff must prove two elements: first, that the defendant priced below its 1. Brooke Grp. Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993). 2. C. Scott Hemphill & Philip J. Weiser, Beyond Brooke Group: Bringing Reality to the Law of Predatory Pricing, 127 YALE L.J. 2048 (2018). 996 predatory pricing: limiting brooke group to monopolies and sound implementation of price-cost comparisons own costs; and second, that it had a sufficient possibility of recovering the en- suing losses from higher prices a�er the predation lessened competition. Brooke Group’s reach and influence has expanded from the oligopoly setting where it originated to monopoly settings in Weyerhaueser and Linkline.3 Brooke Group has also expanded its influence from core predatory pricing cases to oth- er behavior, such as bundled discounts and price squeezes.4 As courts consider whether to extend the Brooke Group rule, and as other nations consider what constitutes predatory pricing,5 it is worth examining the situations and interpretations for which the rule makes most sense. Hemphill and Weiser argue for flexibility in interpreting the Brooke Group require- ments—below-cost pricing and recoupment—and against importing these re- quirements to cases with more complex pricing strategies, like loyalty dis- counts.6 I wholeheartedly agree, but would go further. In particular, I argue that Brooke Group should be pared back by restricting it to oligopoly markets and not applying it to monopoly markets. Giving a mo- nopoly a safe harbor from monopolization claims simply because its price ex- ceeds its cost results in allowing an incumbent monopoly with cost or quality advantages over potential rivals to charge high prices with little fear of compet- itor entry. The high price may not attract entry at all if potential rivals under- 3. See Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc’ns, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 451-52 (2009) (finding that a price-squeeze case against a monopoly needs to show either pricing below cost or a duty to sell) (citing Brooke Group, 509 U.S. at 223); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., 549 U.S. 312, 315 (2007) (applying Brooke Group to monopoly buying, presum- ably implying that it applies to monopoly selling). 4. See, e.g., Cascade Health Sols. v. PeaceHealth, 515 F.3d 883, 903 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying the Brooke Group rule to bundled discounts); see also Linkline, 555 U.S. at 457 (applying the Brooke Group rule to price squeezes). 5. For example, the law in the European Union appears not to be completely settled. In Irish Sugar, the European Court of First Instance held illegal the price cuts of a dominant firm de- terring the entry of an importer even though prices remained above cost. Case T-228/97, Irish Sugar PLC v. Commission, 1999 E.C.R. II-2969 ¶¶ 173-193 (Ct. First Instance), aff ’d on other grounds, C-497/99 P, 2001 E.C.R. I-5333 (E.C.J.). On the other hand, the Europe- an Commission has suggested a near safe harbor for above-cost pricing at least from the standpoint of its prosecutorial discretion. Communication from the Commission — Guid- ance on the Commission’s Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to Abusive Exclusionary Conduct by Dominant Undertakings, 2009 O.J. (C 45) 7, 11, http:// eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52009XC0224(01)&from=EN [http://perma.cc/832S-2LQQ] (“If the data clearly suggest that an equally efficient competi- tor can compete effectively with the pricing conduct of the dominant undertaking, the Commission will, in principle, infer that the dominant undertaking’s pricing conduct is not likely to have an adverse impact on effective competition, and thus on consumers, and will therefore be unlikely to intervene.”). 6. Hemphill & Weiser, supra note 2, at 2049-51, 2077. 997 the yale law journal forum June 4, 2018 stand that the monopoly can take advantage of the safe harbor to drive them from the market with prices that are above the incumbent monopoly’s cost, but below its rivals’ costs. Moreover, even if rivals are sometimes induced to enter, this need not worry the monopoly much if it can legally drive them from the market. Second, I address how best to implement Brooke Group’s price-cost compar- ison when it is used. Brooke Group famously punted on that question by stating only that the plaintiff needed to prove that price was less than an “appropriate measure” of the defendant’s cost without saying which measure is appropriate.7 In fact, I will argue that the Court’s indeterminacy was wise because there is no single appropriate measure of cost. The real point of the test is to ensure that the defendant has sacrificed profit, a necessary predicate to the second re- quirement of possibility of recoupment. I will outline a variety of possible price-cost tests from which the plaintiff should be able to choose, based upon data availability and context. Plaintiff choice is appropriate because satisfying any of these tests would demonstrate profit sacrifice. In this respect, I welcome Hemphill and Weiser’s appeal to take a flexible approach in implementing Brooke Group.8 However, while Hemphill and Weiser exclude the possibility of a plaintiff showing that the sacrifice from below-cost pricing involves loss of revenue on inframarginal units (the units sold prior to any allegedly predatory expansion), I argue in contrast that an inclusive notion of cost is appropriate and captures such lost revenues as one cost of output expansion, a position equivalent to that advanced by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in AMR.9 De- spite being open to a variety of price-cost comparisons in principle, the Tenth Circuit in AMR squarely rejected this particular comparison.10 But the Tenth Circuit’s reasoning is muddled, and I encourage other circuits to allow the plaintiffs to make any price-cost comparison which demonstrates profit sacri- fice. Part I comments on what Hemphill and Weiser call the “infirmities” of Brooke Group. Part II argues that the Brooke Group requirements (and specifical- ly the price-less-than-cost requirement) should not apply to monopolies. Part III of the Response takes the Brooke Group framework as given and asks what price-cost comparisons are “appropriate”—at least in the case of monopolies. 7. Brooke Grp., 509 U.S. at 222. 8. Hemphill & Weiser, supra note 2, at 2056. 9. United States v. AMR Corp., 335 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2003). 10. Id. at 1119. 998 predatory pricing: limiting brooke group to monopolies and sound implementation of price-cost comparisons i. the infirmities of brooke group Hemphill and Weiser identify two “infirmities” in the Brooke Group deci- sion. I will add one more.11 First, they point out that the Court did not have the opportunity to hear and evaluate counterarguments to the requirement that plaintiff demonstrate below-cost pricing and a reasonable prospect of recoupment because the plain- tiff ’s counsel conceded these requirements.12 Moreover, the Court itself also did not debate the wisdom of the two requirements it created, instead choosing to focus on an unusually deep factual analysis of whether the requirements were satisfied in the case.13 Hemphill and Weiser conclude that “[n]otably, . the Court accepted the price-cost and recoupment tests with lit- tle analysis.”14 Hemphill and Weiser’s second critique centers on the Court’s attitude to- ward pricing. Foundational to the Court’s adoption of the Brooke Group re- quirements is the belief that anticompetitive price cuts are rare.15 This belief allows the Court to put low weight on the cost of failing to identify some anti- competitive predatory pricing relative to the costs of condemning legitimate price cuts. However, Hemphill and Weisner point out that this belief lacks sub- stantial empirical support.16 To these two critiques, I would add that the theoretical arguments suggest- ing that price cuts are rarely anticompetitive are not very convincing, particu- larly for cases of monopolies with advantages. Consider Robert Bork’s explana- tion of why he thought predatory pricing is rare: A firm contemplating predatory price warfare will perceive a series of obstacles that make the prospect of such a campaign exceedingly unat- tractive.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amazon's Antitrust Paradox
    LINA M. KHAN Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox abstract. Amazon is the titan of twenty-first century commerce. In addition to being a re- tailer, it is now a marketing platform, a delivery and logistics network, a payment service, a credit lender, an auction house, a major book publisher, a producer of television and films, a fashion designer, a hardware manufacturer, and a leading host of cloud server space. Although Amazon has clocked staggering growth, it generates meager profits, choosing to price below-cost and ex- pand widely instead. Through this strategy, the company has positioned itself at the center of e- commerce and now serves as essential infrastructure for a host of other businesses that depend upon it. Elements of the firm’s structure and conduct pose anticompetitive concerns—yet it has escaped antitrust scrutiny. This Note argues that the current framework in antitrust—specifically its pegging competi- tion to “consumer welfare,” defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to capture the ar- chitecture of market power in the modern economy. We cannot cognize the potential harms to competition posed by Amazon’s dominance if we measure competition primarily through price and output. Specifically, current doctrine underappreciates the risk of predatory pricing and how integration across distinct business lines may prove anticompetitive. These concerns are height- ened in the context of online platforms for two reasons. First, the economics of platform markets create incentives for a company to pursue growth over profits, a strategy that investors have re- warded. Under these conditions, predatory pricing becomes highly rational—even as existing doctrine treats it as irrational and therefore implausible.
    [Show full text]
  • The Three Types of Collusion: Fixing Prices, Rivals, and Rules Robert H
    University of Baltimore Law ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law All Faculty Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 2000 The Three Types of Collusion: Fixing Prices, Rivals, and Rules Robert H. Lande University of Baltimore School of Law, [email protected] Howard P. Marvel Ohio State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, and the Law and Economics Commons Recommended Citation The Three Types of Collusion: Fixing Prices, Rivals, and Rules, 2000 Wis. L. Rev. 941 (2000) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES THE THREE TYPES OF COLLUSION: FIXING PRICES, RIVALS, AND RULES ROBERTH. LANDE * & HOWARDP. MARVEL** Antitrust law has long held collusion to be paramount among the offenses that it is charged with prohibiting. The reason for this prohibition is simple----collusion typically leads to monopoly-like outcomes, including monopoly profits that are shared by the colluding parties. Most collusion cases can be classified into two established general categories.) Classic, or "Type I" collusion involves collective action to raise price directly? Firms can also collude to disadvantage rivals in a manner that causes the rivals' output to diminish or causes their behavior to become chastened. This "Type 11" collusion in turn allows the colluding firms to raise prices.3 Many important collusion cases, however, do not fit into either of these categories.
    [Show full text]
  • Experimental Evidence on Predatory Pricing Policies
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Edlin, Aaron S.; Roux, Catherine; Schmutzler, Armin; Thöni, Christian Working Paper Hunting unicorns? Experimental evidence on predatory pricing policies Working Paper, No. 258 Provided in Cooperation with: Department of Economics, University of Zurich Suggested Citation: Edlin, Aaron S.; Roux, Catherine; Schmutzler, Armin; Thöni, Christian (2017) : Hunting unicorns? Experimental evidence on predatory pricing policies, Working Paper, No. 258, University of Zurich, Department of Economics, Zurich, http://dx.doi.org/10.5167/uzh-138188 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/173418 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu University of Zurich Department of Economics Working Paper Series ISSN 1664-7041 (print) ISSN 1664-705X (online) Working Paper No.
    [Show full text]
  • Monopoly Pricing in a Time of Shortage James I
    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 33 Article 6 Issue 4 Summer 2002 2002 Monopoly Pricing in a Time of Shortage James I. Serota Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation James I. Serota, Monopoly Pricing in a Time of Shortage, 33 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 791 (2002). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol33/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Monopoly Pricing in a Time of Shortage James L Serota* I. INTRODUCTION Traditionally, the electric power industry has been heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels. Recently, the industry has been evolving towards increasing emphasis on market competition and less pervasive regulation. Much of the initial impetus for change has occurred during periods of reduced demand and increased supply. More recently, increases in demand and supply shortages have led to brownouts, rolling blackouts, price spikes and accusations of "price gouging."' The purpose of this paper is to examine the underlying economic and legal bases for regulation and antitrust actions, and the antitrust ground rules for assessing liability for "monopoly pricing in times of shortage." In this author's view, price changes in response to demand are the normal reaction of a competitive market, and efforts to limit price changes in the name of "price gouging" represent an effort to return to pervasive regulation of electricity.
    [Show full text]
  • Predatory Pricing, a Case Study: Matsushita Electric Industries Co. V. Zenith Radio Corporation
    PREDATORY PRICING, A CASE STUDY: MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES CO. V. ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION M. STEVEN WAGLE INTRODUCTION There is an abundance of predatory pricing theories. Scholars have created a barrage of rules and thresholds designed to detect un- lawful predatory practices. The most influential work on predatory practice was written almost thirty years ago by John S. McGee.1 Mc- Gee showed that although it was widely believed that the Standard Oil Company used predatory pricing in its virtual monopolization of the oil refining market, there was no hard evidence to show that Standard Oil in fact employed such pricing. Since McGee, many scholars have reviewed the theories of pric- ing, and recent literature on the law and economics of antitrust has devoted increasing attention to this issue.2 There has also been an outpouring of cost-based rules appearing in court opinions dealing with predatory pricing.3 These rules can essentially be attributed to t J.D., Washburn University, 1986; M.A., Wichita State University, 1986; B.A., Unmversity of Kansas, 1980. Law clerk to the Hon. John K. Pearson, Wichita, Kansas. I would like to thank Dr. Philip Hersch, Professor of Economics, Wichita State Umver- sity, for patiently reviewing this article and offering invaluable criticism of it. 1. McGee, Predatory Price Cutting: The Standard Oil (NJ.) Case, 1 J.L. & EcON. 137 (1958). 2. For additional perspectives, see Areeda & Turner, PredatoryPring and Re- lated Practices Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 88 HARV. L. REV. 697 (1975); Jos- kow & Klevorick, A Frameworkfor Analyzing PredatoryPrmcng Policy, 89 YALE L.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation Methods in Natural Monopoly Markets Case of Russian Gas Network Companies
    International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology. ISSN 0974-3154, Volume 12, Number 5 (2019), pp. 624-630 © International Research Publication House. http://www.irphouse.com Regulation Methods in Natural Monopoly Markets Case of Russian Gas Network Companies Filatova Irina1, Shabalov Mikhail2 and Nikolaichuk Liubov3 Department of Economics, Accounting and Finance, Saint Petersburg Mining University, Russian Federation. 1ORCIDs: 0000-0002-0505-8274, 20000-0003-2224-6530, 30000-0001-5013-1787 Abstract difficult to predict and regulate. It is worth noting that the state in the gas distribution industry acts simultaneously as The main stakeholders in the gas distribution sector two stakeholders: the first reflects its interests as an authority (government, shareholders and consumers) have different regulating the functioning and development of the industry; interests and goals. The state, as a regulatory body, should and the second one represents the interests of the state as the find the best regulatory methods in order to achieve the main shareholder of gas companies. maximum effect of public welfare: direct (pricing) and indirect (price influencing). The use of the “costs plus” A key tool designed to ensure a balance of interests of the method makes it possible to set the lowest possible tariffs for above parties is the policy of state price regulation, the goal of the transportation of natural gas, but it leads to the emergence which is to prevent market failures in order to maintain and of a “tariff precedent”, a loss of profits for companies, limited strengthen public welfare [2, 3]. At the same time, the need investment in the development of the sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Buyer Power: Is Monopsony the New Monopoly?
    COVER STORIES Antitrust , Vol. 33, No. 2, Spring 2019. © 2019 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. Buyer Power: Is Monopsony the New Monopoly? BY DEBBIE FEINSTEIN AND ALBERT TENG OR A NUMBER OF YEARS, exists—or only when it can also be shown to harm consumer commentators have debated whether the United welfare; (2) historical case law on monopsony; (3) recent States has a monopoly problem. But as part of the cases involving monopsony issues; and (4) counseling con - recent conversation over the direction of antitrust siderations for monopsony issues. It remains to be seen law and the continued appropriateness of the con - whether we will see significantly increased enforcement Fsumer welfare standard, the debate has turned to whether the against buyer-side agreements and mergers that affect buyer antitrust agencies are paying enough attention to monopsony power and whether such enforcement will be successful, but issues. 1 A concept that appears more in textbooks than in case what is clear is that the antitrust enforcement agencies will be law has suddenly become mainstream and practitioners exploring the depth and reach of these theories and clients should be aware of developments when they counsel clients must be prepared for investigations and enforcement actions on issues involving supply-side concerns. implicating these issues. This topic is not going anywhere any time soon.
    [Show full text]
  • Resale Price Maintenance: Economic Theories and Empirical Evidence
    "RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE: ECONOMIC THEORIES AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE Thomas R. Overstreet, Jr. Bureau of Economics Staff Report to the Federal Trade Commission November 1983 RESALF. PRICE INTF.NANCE: ECONO IC THEORIES AND PIRICAL EVIDENCE Thomas R. Overstreet, Jr. Bureau of Economics Staff Report to the Federal Trade Commiss ion November 1983 . FEDERAL TRDE COM~ISSION -f. JAMES C. ~ILLER, III, Chairman MICHAEL PERTSCHUK, Commissioner PATRICIA P. BAILEY, Commissioner GEORGE W. DOUGLAS, Commissioner TERRY CALVANI, Commi S5 ioner BUREAU OF ECONO~ICS WENDY GRA~, Director RONALD S. BOND, Deputy Director for Operations and Research RICHARD HIGGINS, Deputy Director for Consumer Protection and Regulatory Analysis JOHN L. PETE , Associate Director for Special Projects DAVID T. SCHEFF N, Deputy Director for Competition and Anti trust PAUL PAUTLER, Assistant to Deputy Director for Competition and Antitrust JOHN E. CALFEE, Special Assistant to the Director JAMES A. HURDLE, Special Assistant to . the Director THOMAS WALTON, Special Assistant to the Director KEITH B. ANDERSON, Assistant Director of Regulatory Analysis JAMES M. FERGUSON, Assistant Director for Antitrust PAULINE IPPOLITO, Assistant Director for Industry Analysis WILLIAM F. LONG, ~anager for Line of Business PHILIP NELSON, Assistant Director for Competition Analysis PAUL H. RUBIN, Assistant Director for Consumer Protection This report has been prepared by an individual member of the professional staff of the FTC Bureau of Economics. It rsfle cts solely the views of the author, and is not intended to represent the position of the Federal Trade Commission, or necessarily the views of any individual Commissioner. -ii - fI. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank former FTC Commissioner David A.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for the Analysis of Cases of Exclusionary Abuse of Dominance
    GUIDELINES FOR THE ANALYSIS OF CASES OF EXCLUSIONARY ABUSE OF DOMINANCE Buenos Aires, Mayo de 2019 Disclaimer: These guidelines have been translated into English to help their reading by non-Spanish speaking people. The only official version of the Argentine Guidelines for the Analysis of Cases of Exclusionary Abuse of Dominance, however, is the Spanish version. 1 CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 3 II. EXISTENCE OF A DOMINANT POSITION 4 III. ABUSE OF DOMINANC​E 7 III.1. Factors to take into account for the existence of exclusionary abuses of dominance 8 III.2. Efficiencies 9 IV. SPECIFIC FORMS OF ABUSE 10 IV.1. Refusal to supply and margin squeeze 10 IV.2. Tying and bundling 13 IV.3. Predatory pricing 15 IV.4. Vertical restraints 16 IV.4.1.Resale price maintenance 17 IV.4.2. Exclusivity 18 IV.4.3.Conditional discounts 20 2 I. INTRODUCTION The aim of this document is to provide guidelines regarding practices that constitute infringements of Act No. 27,442 of Defense of Competition (LDC, for its Spanish acronym) and to contribute to predictability in decision-making, notwithstanding its application on a case-by-case basis and the use of complementary criteria that may be developed in the future. In this sense, the guidelines set forth in this document do not constitute an opinion regarding specific cases under investigation. A typical classification of the conducts that infringe the LDC differentiates unilateral from coordinated conducts. This document refers only to the first type, in particular, to possible abuses of a dominant position by a single firm or legal entity.
    [Show full text]
  • Methods for Increasing Competition in Telecommunications Markets
    Methods for Increasing Competition in Telecommunications Markets By Mark Jamison Public Utility Research Center University of Florida Gainesville, Florida March 2012 Contact Information: Dr. Mark Jamison, Director Public Utility Research Center PO Box 117142 205 Matherly Hall University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611-7142 +1.352.392.6148 [email protected] The author would like to thank Dr. Janice Hauge for her helpful comments on this paper and Professor Suphat Suphachalasai for his recommendations on content. The author also would like to thank Thammasat University and the National Telecommunications Commission of Thailand for their generous financial support. All errors and omissions are the responsibility of the author. Abstract We examine the concepts of workable competition, barriers and conduct that limit the achievement of workable competition, and steps that sector regulators can take to address these obstacles. The concept of workable competition is an attempt to describe a market situation that does not fit the model of perfect competition, but that has enough features of perfect competition that government intervention is unnecessary and possibly even counterproductive. The first attempt to define workable competition focused on issues of product differentiation, the number and size-distribution of producers, restrictions on output, imperfection in the value chain, information, scale economies, and producer ability to change output. Most recently a simple set of metrics emerged, namely that there should be at least 5 reasonably comparable rivals, none of the firms should have more than a 40 percent market share, and entry by new competitors must be easy. Barriers to achieving workable competition can be divided into demand side market features, supply side market features, and firm conduct issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Predatory Pricing
    Report on Predatory Pricing Prepared by The Unilateral Conduct Working Group th Presented at the 7 Annual Conference of the ICN Kyoto, April 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary.......................................................................................................... 3 I. LEGAL BASIS AND ENFORCEMENT................................................................ 5 1. General v. Specific Provisions................................................................................ 5 2. Civil v. Criminal Enforcement................................................................................ 6 3. Overview of Agency and Private Enforcement ...................................................... 7 A. Agency enforcement ........................................................................................... 7 B. Private cases challenging predatory pricing ....................................................... 8 II. CRITERIA FOR ABUSE OF DOMINANCE/MONOPOLIZATION BASED ON PREDATORY PRICING.......................................................................................... 9 1. Use of Cost Measures or Benchmarks to Demonstrate Loss or Sacrifice .............. 9 A. Cost measures employed................................................................................. 9 B. Agencies do not necessarily use the same cost measure in every case......... 12 C. Presumptions and safe harbors.......................................................................... 13 D. Use of price and cost data ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The European Antitrust Review 2013
    The European Antitrust Review 2013 Published by Global Competition Review in association with Anastasios Antoniou LLC Art De Lex Law Firm Asters bpv Braun Partners bpv Hügel Rechtsanwälte Buntscheck Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH DLA Piper Italy DLA Piper Spain SL Dryllerakis & Associates Eisenberger & Herzog ELIG Attorneys at Law Epstein, Chomsky, Osnat & Co Gide Loyrette Nouel AARPI Herbert Smith LLP Homburger K & L Gates Karanovic´ & Nikolic´ Kastell Advokatbyrå AB Kavcˇicˇ, Rogl & Bracˇun Kirkland & Ellis International LLP Krogerus Attorneys Ltd Lademann & Associates GmbH Economists and Competition Consultants Latham & Watkins Macfarlanes LLP Monaco & Associati Motieka & Audzevicˇius Popovici Nitu & Asociatii SJ Berwin Steptoe & Johnson LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Szabó Kelemen & Partners Attorneys Taylor Wessing Vasil Kisil & Partners Vogel & Vogel Wikborg Rein www.globalcompetitionreview.com EU: MONOPOLISATION Post Danmark: predatory pricing in the European Union Howard Rosenblatt, Héctor Armengod and Andreas Scordamaglia-Tousis Latham & Watkins Introduction that a dominant firm can only be interested in applying such low In last year’s edition, we wrote that unilateral pricing behaviour – in prices to eliminate competitors and gain a dominant position which that case, conditional discounts – requires a careful approach to will allow it to exercise market power.6 As the Court explained in enforcement. While under-enforcement could undermine competi- France Télécom, the relevant measure of costs are those of the domi- tion, over-enforcement could deter companies from charging low nant firm, even if they are not below costs incurred by competitors.7 prices – both outcomes that are bad for consumers. The stakes are Nevertheless, this presumption could theoretically be rebutted with equally high in alleged predatory pricing.
    [Show full text]