Margaret Bloom Presentation
Slide 1
SOME EXPERIENCE FROM
OVERSEAS
Joint DOJ/FTC hearings on single-firm conduct
12 September 2006
Margaret Bloom
Visiting Professor, King's College London
Senior Consultant, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
Slide 2
Overview
- Should all jurisdictions have the same approach?
- Action to increase convergence worldwide
- Some lessons from EC Article 82 review
Slide 3
Should all jurisdictions have
the same approach?
- Would this maximize consumer welfare?
- Are different approaches justified by different market structures eg former state owned monopolies? Smaller national markets?
- Are they justified by whether enforcement is by administrative agencies or by courts?
- Impact of treble damages suits - Or do they just reflect different judgments on the right balance between false negatives and false positives?
Slide 4
Action to increase
convergence worldwide
- By ICN, OECD, U.S. agencies and others
- Training and sharing experience
- Success of International Cartel Enforcers Workshops
- ICN Investigative Techniques for Mergers Workshop
- Guidelines
- ICN Merger Guidelines Workbook
- How do others learn easily about US approach?
- ABA "strongly encourage" EC to issue A82 guidelines
- Staff exchanges?
Slide 5
Some lessons from Article 82
review (1)
- Need clarity on objectives ie enhancing consumer welfare and efficiency
- Much EC case law influenced by "protecting the structure of competition" and "the rights and opportunities of market operators"
- Plausible theory of consumer harm should be
- required for intervention: actual or likely harm
- Avoid overly complicated rules
- Efficiency benefits should be assessed as part
- of the analysis of conduct rather than a limited defence
Slide 6
Some lessons from Article 82
review (2)
- Use safe harbors rather than presumptions of dominance/monopoly power or abuse eg
- Low market share cannot have substantial market power. But high market share cannot safely presume firm has substantial market power
- Assuming can define market!
- Price > AAC for loyalty discounts and predation
- Low market share cannot have substantial market power. But high market share cannot safely presume firm has substantial market power
- Should not be too easy to find a firm isdominant or has monopoly power
- Should follow US rather than EC approach
Slide 7
Some lessons from Article 82
review (3)
- Avoid "abuse shopping"
- Need same tests and cost benchmarks for similar economic effects eg
- Predation and loyalty discounts
- Margin or price squeeze, predation or refusal to deal
- Need same tests and cost benchmarks for similar economic effects eg
- May need more than one test of harm to cover different types of exclusionary conduct
- If so, need clarity on which one to use when
- If only one, prefer no-economic-sense to equally- efficient-competitor