1 ABA 50th Annual Antitrust Law Spring Meeting Beyond Predatory Pricing Mark C. Schechter April 24, 2002.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Assessing Anticompetitive Effects and Foreclosure PANEL III.
Advertisements

Antitrust enforcement against unilateral practices in high tech industries Michele Polo (Bocconi University and Igier) LEAR Conference – Rome, June 25-6,
Policy Recommendation on Competitive Issues of PSI Re-use First draft … and beyond … Warsaw, October 20 th, 2011.
Pricing Decisions and Cost Management
Pricing Decisions and Cost Management
The Price of Loyalty: Bundled Discounts and Quasi-Exclusive Discount Structures Willard K. Tom ABA Antitrust Section Spring Meeting Washington, DC April,
Beyond Predatory Pricing Janusz A. Ordover New York University and AES Consulting ABA Annual Antitrust Law Meeting April 24,
The Eighth Annual Trans- Atlantic Antitrust Dialogue Exclusionary Pricing in Article 82 Cases – A U.S. FTC Perspective Alden F. Abbott Associate Director,
1 COPYRIGHT © 2007 West Legal Studies in Business, a part of The Thomson Corporation. Thomson, the Star logo, and West Legal Studies in Business are trademarks.
Monopolization Predatory or Exclusionary (Entry Deterring) Acts or Practices.
Antitrust Treatment of Dominant Firms: Is the Atlantic Getting Wider or Narrower? Ken Glazer ABA Antitrust Section March 31, 2005.
Price-cost Tests v. Raising Rivals’ Costs for Loyalty Programs and its Implication for the Taking of Advantage of Market Power Provisions 2 nd ATE Symposium.
1 REFORM OF ARTICLE 82 EC BIICL, 24 February 2006 Treatment of Rebates Johanne Peyre.
1 Abuse of Monopoly Power (or Dominant Position) Moscow, July 9, 2010 Douglas H. Ginsburg.
Administration in International Organizations PUBLIC COMPETITION LAW Class V, 3rd Nov 2014 Krzysztof Rokita.
Byungbae Kim Senior Counsel for International Business Affairs Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P. C. American Bar Association’s Section.
Insurance Fundamentals for Policymakers. Four assignments: Insurance Principles Insurance Coverages: Property and Casualty Insurance Coverages: Life and.
Dominance Monopolies and Abuse of Dominance Barbados Fair Trading Commission Program in Competition Law and Policy Barbados – March 30 – 31, 2011 Sean.
Sherman Act Section 2 Committee Hot Topics in Monopolization Law “Section 2 in the Antitrust Division” J. Bruce McDonald March 31, 2005 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT.
Explorations in Economics
London 22 Nov 2005 Modernization of Article 82 Lars-Hendrik Röller * Chief Competition Economist European Commission CLA and BIICL Conference on Article.
Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly 1 PUBLIC POLICY AND COMPETITION  Government Anti-Trust Policy Schizophrenic government policy toward monopolistic.
Monopoly. Monopoly A monopoly is one business firm that produces the entire market supply of a particular good or service. A monopoly is one business.
Copyright©2004 South-Western Monopoly. Copyright © 2004 South-Western While a competitive firm is a price taker, a monopoly firm is a price maker.
© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. The Evolving Standards For Defining “Exclusionary Conduct” in the United States Philip C. Larson November 28,
Chapter 22 Microeconomics Unit III: The Theory of the Firm.
Competition Policy on Exclusionary Conduct: Toward an Effects Based Analysis? Gregory J. Werden Senior Economic Counsel Antitrust Division U.S. Department.
Enforcing Competition on the Internet Howard Shelanski Georgetown University February 13, 2012.
Antitrust. “Is there not a causal connection between the development of these huge, indomitable trusts and the horrible crimes now under investigation?
Can a Competition Law Violation be Legally Insignificant? A U.S. Perspective Russell W. Damtoft Associate Director Office of International Affairs United.
John Hayes 15 May 2008 The 8th Annual Trans-Atlantic Antitrust Dialogue Economic Issues in the Commission’s Case Against Intel.
Dynamic Markets and the Abuse of a Dominant Position Athens, June 1-2, 2007 by Federico Etro University of Milan, Bicocca.
BIICL Conference – Reform of Article 82 Antitrust Rules and the Role of the Community Courts Christian Ahlborn 24 February 2006.
Erlinda M. Medalla April 27-28, 2006 Hanoi Understanding Competition Policy.
The Modernization of Article 82 : an Economic Perspective Dr Valérie RABASSA* Chief Economist Office DG COMPETITION EUROPEAN COMMISSION *The views expressed.
1. Introduction to Price Fixing: Legal and Economic Foundations Antitrust Law Fall 2015 NYU School of Law Dale Collins SLIDES FOR CLASS.
Judge Sarah S. Vance, Eastern District of Louisiana Establishing Damages Under U.S. Antitrust Law.
Medicines and the Poor: What Role for Competition Law & Policy? Mariana Tavares de Araujo Competition Department, Head SDE, Ministry of Justice, Brazil.
Unilateral Exclusionary Conduct – An Analytical Framework Jorge Fagundes 3rd Coloquio - ForoCompetencia Buenos Aires, Argentina – November 2, 2007 Fagundes.
9 | Monopoly How Monopolies Form and Survive: Barriers to Entry How a Profit-Maximizing Monopoly Chooses Output and Price What are the Welfare Effects.
What is a monopoly? What is market power? How do these concepts relate to each other? What is a monopoly? What is market power? How do these concepts.
Copyright©2004 South-Western 15 Monopoly. Copyright © 2004 South-Western Monopoly While a competitive firm is a price taker, a monopoly firm is a price.
 Federal gov may regulate business for any reason as long as advances gov economic need  States may regulate business as long as the laws do not interfere.
Legal Environment for a New Century. Click your mouse anywhere on the screen when you are ready to advance the text within each slide. After the starburst.
© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Monopoly Power: Getting it and keeping it US Perspective Sharis Pozen, Partner ACCE Seminar 13 May 2008.
EU Discussion Paper on Exclusionary Abuses Michael Albers European Commission DG Competition 54th Antitrust Law Spring Meeting Washington DC, 30 March.
Copyright © 2006 Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Ltd. 15 Monopoly.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning 1 Chapter 26 Antitrust and Monopoly.
Article 82 and the courts The burden and standard of proof Kelyn Bacon 24 February 2006.
COPYRIGHT © 2011 South-Western/Cengage Learning. 1 Click your mouse anywhere on the screen to advance the text in each slide. After the starburst appears,
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business, a Division of Thomson Learning 20.1 Chapter 20 Antitrust Law.
Pure competition is a theoretical market structure that has a very large numbers of sellers, identical products, and freedom to enter into, conduct, and.
49-1 Copyright © 2013 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
1 Click your mouse anywhere on the screen to advance the text in each slide. After the starburst appears, click a blue triangle to move to the next slide.
WTO Rules on Subsidies The WTO has a set of rules on subsidies.
Pure Competition Pure competition is a theoretical market structure that has a very large numbers of sellers, identical products, and freedom to enter.
Chapter 27: Antitrust and Monopoly
CHAPTER 38 Antitrust.
African Competition Forum
Pricing Decisions and Cost Management
Pricing: Understanding and Capturing Customer Value
The University of Chicago
Abuse of Dominance Case Studies.
Class 14 Antitrust, Winter, 2018 Bundled Discounts
Coordinator in Supervision and Enforcement Department III
Loyalty Rebates: Exclusive Dealing, Predatory Pricing, or Both?
2018 ICN UCWG Workshop BOS 2 – Predatory Pricing Group D
Essentials of the legal environment today, 5e
Presentation transcript:

1 ABA 50th Annual Antitrust Law Spring Meeting Beyond Predatory Pricing Mark C. Schechter April 24, 2002

2 I.Overview of the Law (The World According to Brooke Group) II.The Way Around Brooke Group A.Concord Boat v. Brunswick B.LePage’s v. 3M C.U.S. v. American Airlines III. The Dividing Line Between Competition and Predation

3 Overview of the Law (The World According to Brooke Group)

4 Elements of Predation Overview of the Law (The World According to Brooke Group) I.Alleged predator’s low prices are below an appropriate level of costs for a relevant product Rationale for Element I Exclusionary effect of prices above a relevant measure of costs “is beyond the practical ability of a judicial tribunal to control without courting intolerable risks of chilling legitimate price cutting” [at 223]

5 Elements of Predation Overview of the Law (The World According to Brooke Group) A.Whose costs? -- the alleged predator’s costs Rationale Above-cost prices below the costs of a firm’s competitors do not “inflict injury to competition cognizable under the antitrust laws” [at 223]

6 Elements of Predation Overview of the Law (The World According to Brooke Group) B.What measure of costs? -- some measure of incremental cost that does not interfere with “competition on the merits” The exclusionary effect of prices that reflect the lower cost structure of an alleged predator represents competition on the merits [at 223] –Competition on the merits should allow a firm to cut prices in order to increase market share [at 223] –Discouraging a price cut and forcing firms to maintain prices above cost does not constitute sound antitrust policy (“even if the effect of the cut is to induce or reestablish supracompetitive pricing”) [at 224] Rationale

7 Elements of Predation Overview of the Law (The World According to Brooke Group) II.Alleged predator can recoup its investment in below-cost prices Rationale for Element II “Without recoupment, predatory pricing produces lower aggregate prices in the market” [at 224]

8 Elements of Predation Overview of the Law (The World According to Brooke Group) A.Recoup where? -- in the market alleged to be predated Rationale Whether recoupment is likely requires an estimate of the cost of the alleged predation and “a close analysis of both the scheme alleged and structure and conditions of the relevant market” [at 226]

9 Elements of Predation Overview of the Law (The World According to Brooke Group) B.Why require recoupment in the relevant market? -- to ensure the market is, in fact, monopolized (and avoid costly errors) Predators “must obtain enough market power to set higher than competitive prices for a long enough period of time [at 225] We insisted that the plaintiff prove a dangerous probability that the defendant would monopolize “a particular market” [at 225] “Mistaken inferences are especially costly because they chill the very conduct the antitrust laws are designed to protect” [at 225] Rationale

10 The Way Around Brooke Group Concord Boat 3M American Airlines

11 Concord Boat v. Brunswick The Way Around Brooke Group (Beyond Predatory Pricing) – Loyalty discount program -- predation w/out proof of below-cost pricing –8 th Circuit -- prices above the firm’s average variable cost presumptively legal and the essence of competition – Loyalty discount program alleged to amount to de facto exclusive dealing -- “tax” on boat builders that purchase competitors’ engines

12 LePage’s v. 3M The Way Around Brooke Group (Beyond Predatory Pricing) –Bundled discount program -- predation w/out proof of below-cost pricing –LePage’s -- Linking of rebates on a competitive product with a monopoly product is anticompetitive because presumptively it excludes equally efficient competitors –3M -- So long as prices on an attributed basis were above cost, makes no difference whether discounts were offered directly on competitive product or involved bundled discounts on a range of products

13 U.S. v. American Airlines The Way Around Brooke Group (Beyond Predatory Pricing) –Predation at price levels above incremental cost –Failure to maximize profits –Response to changing competitive environment -- ex ante (network) versus ex post (point-to-point) – Predation by improving the defined relevant product –More flights to meet demand created by lowered prices –Frequency and availability -- problems in evaluating revenue attributable to components of the relevant product –Recoupment outside the relevant product market –Subjective standard -- distinguishing reputation for aggressive conduct from predatory conduct –What would be left of the recoupment standard?

14 The Dividing Line Between Competition and Predation

15 “It would be ironic indeed if the standard for predatory pricing liability were so low that antitrust suits themselves became a tool for keeping prices high” [Brooke Group at ] The Dividing Line Between Competition and Predation –Under vs. Over-Inclusion -- where should the bias be? –Successful predation is rare, whatever the intent Consumers benefit by failed predation –How aggressive is too aggressive? Mechanism of competition and predation is same –Complex standards invite litigation The regulatory trough -- the last resort for the unsuccessful competitor

16 The Dividing Line Between Competition and Predation –Simplicity is a Virtue –Enforceable standards -- how would an injunction read? A new era of price regulation? See GFC Office decision - LH/Germania (Frankfurt/Berlin Route) –Counseling effects What will lawyers tell their clients? The need for speed in a consultants’ world –Treble damage threat Risk averse umbrella pricing strategy