The deterrent effect of competition authorities’ work

September 15, 2017

(by Mike Walker^) In his post last month, Steve Davies bemoaned the lack of evidence on the magnitude of harm deterred by the activities of the Competition Agencies. He presented some estimates from research in CCP on cartel deterrence, concluding most strikingly: “On the most conservative of our estimates, more than half of all potential cartel harm never occurs, because it is deterred. This is very much a lower bound, and the proportion could be as high as 90%.” Read the rest of this entry »

The deterrence value of competition policy can and should be measured

August 17, 2017

(by Steve Davies) In a post last year, I argued that it was time for competition economists, both academics and practitioners, to start seriously tackling one of the big unknowns: how much harm is deterred by Competition Law and the Competition Authorities (CAs)? In this blog I pull together some results from three recently completed papers on cartel deterrence. I believe that these importantly move forward our understanding of this great unknown, and merit exposure to a non-academic audience in a non-technical way.

We have three ‘headline’ results. Read the rest of this entry »

Has the CAT’s MasterCard decision killed off opt-out class actions by indirect purchasers?

August 10, 2017

(by Sebastian Peyer) On 21 July the Competition Appeal Tribunal (‘CAT’) rejected an application for an opt-out collective proceedings order (‘CPO’) in Walter Hugh Merricks v Mastercard Inc, thereby  blocking the largest opt-out competition claim brought in the UK to date and one of the first large indirect purchaser actions. The applicant brought the claim on behalf of 46.2 million people asking Mastercard for around £14 billion in compensation. Despite the negative outcome for the applicant (and millions of consumers), the CAT’s decision has clarified a number of important points for future CPO applications. But the Tribunal’s decision may have also inadvertently raised the bar for indirect purchaser claims. Read the rest of this entry »

Competition law is an appropriate tool to prevent exploitative price hikes in Pharma

May 26, 2017

(by Sven Gallasch) On 15 May the European Commission formally opened an investigation into Aspen Pharma’s pricing practices concerning five life-saving cancer drugs. This European investigation represents the latest enforcement effort in a string of cases emerging across Europe, including in the United Kingdom and Italy. All investigations are focussed on pharmaceutical pricing practices and allege that their pricing strategies may be exploitative[1] and amount to an abuse of a dominant position.  The surge in these previously rare exploitative pricing cases, has set off alarm bells in the pharmaceutical sector, among legal counsel of big pharma and some academic commentators. Read the rest of this entry »

European Commission launches new anonymous whistleblower tool, but who would use it?

March 21, 2017

(by Andreas Stephan) On 16 March 2017, the European Commission announced the launch of a new online tool to make it easier for individuals to alert it to secret cartels and other violations of competition law. What makes this tool innovative, is that it allows potential whistleblowers to maintain their anonymity via an encrypted messaging system, with two-way communication, giving them the confidence to report cartels. The tailor-made system is maintained by an external intermediary and is designed to be entirely secure. Read the rest of this entry »

Flight Centre: Australian High Court finds agent competed with principal and breached cartel laws

January 9, 2017

(by Julie Clarke[1]) On 14 December 2016, Australia’s highest court (the High Court) determined, by majority, that Flight Centre, a travel agent, competed with airlines for the supply of airline tickets and that, as a result, its attempts to induce the airlines to lower their direct-to-public ticket sales constituted unlawful price fixing. Flight Centre markets itself as offering a ‘Lowest Airfare Guarantee’. In attempting to induce the airlines not to discount tickets sold direct to the public, it was found to be in competition with the airlines and therefore subject to a per se prohibition rather than a full effects analysis. The treatment of travel agents and other similar arrangements falls into somewhat of a grey area in Competition Law.  Are the agents competing horizontally with their suppliers in selling to consumers, or are they better seen as vertically related retailers, or even as de facto employees?  This is important because horizontal cartels are almost universally per se illegal, often with criminal sanctions, vertical price fixing (e.g. RPM) has a much more mixed and nuanced legal position, and employees are completely exempt (a firm is free to set prices that all its salesforce must implement). In Europe, genuine ‘agency agreements’ fall outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU, even though they may contain clauses that can produce anticompetitive effects, such as minimum pricing.[2] This blog analyses the significance of recent developments under Australian Competition Law. Read the rest of this entry »

Leniency in the Civil Aviation Authority’s Price Fixing Case: Will a Ringleader Ever Be Refused Immunity?

December 22, 2016

(by Andreas Stephan) On 20 December 2016, the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CCA) found that East Midlands International Airport Ltd (EMIA) and Prestige Parking had breached competition law, by agreeing that Prestige would not sell its car parking services at below a minimum price that was linked to the price of EMIA’s own parking services. No fine was imposed in the case because Prestige Parking is no longer trading and EMIA received immunity in return for revealing the arrangement to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), under its leniency programme. We do not yet have the full decision, but the Press Release states, in relation to the minimum pricing that, “EMIA imposed this requirement as a condition of allowing Prestige to access facilities at the airport…”. This appears to suggest EMIA was awarded immunity despite instigating the arrangement. Read the rest of this entry »