Exploring If US & EU Antitrust Law Differences Are Substantive or Superficial by Re-Trying US Cases in the EU

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Passaro
Keyword(s):  
Antitrust Law ◽  
The Eu

5. The legal framework

2021 ◽  
pp. 48-54
Author(s):  
Ariel Ezrachi
Keyword(s):  
Mergers And Acquisitions ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Monopoly Power ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Restraint Of Trade ◽  
The Eu

‘The legal framework’ outlines the key competition provisions currently in the US and EU. Like in most other jurisdictions, EU and US laws include competition provisions that are used to address antitrust violations such as anti-competitive agreements or abuse of monopoly power. They also include laws dealing with proposed mergers and acquisitions. The US Antitrust Law prohibits contracts and agreements between two or more individuals or entities in restraint of trade or commerce. Meanwhile, EU competition law prohibits agreements between ‘undertakings’ that have, as their object or effect, the prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition, and affect trade between the EU member states.

On the Scope of Antitrust Law in South Korea, the EU and the US

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-91
Author(s):  
J.W. Han ◽  
C. Buts ◽  
T. Joris
Keyword(s):  
South Korea ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Eu

Article 101 TFEU’s Association of Undertakings Notion and Its Surprising Potential to Help Distinguish Acceptable from Unacceptable Algorithmic Collusion

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel
Keyword(s):  
New Technologies ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Promising Tool ◽  
Learning Capabilities ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Eu

The machine learning capabilities of new technologies raise provocative questions and challenges for the development of competition law within the digital economy. Academic discussions have focused on how antitrust law should avoid, anticipate, and respond to such behavior. The predominant emerging narrative is that antitrust law, in its current form, is unable to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable algorithmic collusion. The purpose of this article is to challenge that claim in the context of Article 101 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU). The reference within Article 101 TFEU to “associations of undertakings” plays a crucial role in that regard and offers a promising tool to better identify and regulate forms of unacceptable algorithmic collusion. Against that background, this article will propose an alternative compliance-focused way forward that could be set up without requiring modifications to the EU legal framework.

scholarly journals Purposive Interpretation of the Term “Undertaking” as Defined Under Polish Antitrust Law – Some Observations

2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-126
Author(s):  
Anna Piszcz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Makers ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Functional Interpretation ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Short Summary ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This paper assesses whether the purposive (functional) interpretation of the term “undertaking” is used by decision-makers in antitrust cases. This article presents a short summary of this research regarding cases related to the abuse of a dominant position. As a rule, priority must be given to the direct meaning of a text. There are, however, important exceptions to the sup- posed rule. A concise examination of the jurisprudence shows that purposive interpretation is used where the provision in question is open to several inter- pretations. This article relates in some form to the problems that arise from the EU-oriented purposive interpretation of the term “undertaking” as defined under Polish antitrust law. The article considers some of them.

Part I Theoretical Challenges, 2 Potential Theoretical Justifications for European Antitrust Criminalization

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Whelan Peter
Keyword(s):  
Current Literature ◽  
General Public ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
Moral Wrong ◽  
Criminal Charge ◽  
Future Activity ◽  
Specific Individual ◽  
The Eu

This chapter presents two different criminal punishment theories which are potentially relevant to the European antitrust criminalization debate: deterrence and retribution. These theories were deemed to be of potential relevance for antitrust criminalization because: (i) the current literature on criminal cartel sanctions focuses to varying degrees on both of these theories; and (ii) the objectives of deterrence and retribution are currently pursued by the EU antitrust enforcers. Deterrence seeks to prevent future activity, either in a general (public-focused) or specific (individual-focused) sense. Meanwhile, retribution posits that individuals should face a criminal charge due to the fact that they have committed a moral wrong. The chapter then looks at the current status of the enforcement theories of deterrence and retribution in EU antitrust law.

scholarly journals Información engañosa sobre un producto y derecho antitrust = Misleading information about a product and antitrust law

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 439
Author(s):  
Javier Framiñán Santas
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Misleading Information ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
The Eu

Resumen: La difusión de información engañosa sobre un producto puede, en determinadas cir­cunstancias, restringir la competencia. Este trabajo analiza cuál es el estándar adecuado para evaluar este tipo de práctica a la luz del Derecho de Defensa la competencia de la UE.Palabras clave: información engañosa, Derecho de la competencia, Hoffman La Roche/Novartis. Abstract: Dissemination of misleading information about a product can be considered a restriction of competition under certain conditions. This paper analyses what standard should be employed in the light of the EU Competition Law to evaluate such practice.Keywords: misleading information, competition law, Hoffman La Roche/Novartis.

3. The goals and scope of competition and antitrust laws

2021 ◽  
pp. 28-37
Author(s):  
Ariel Ezrachi
Keyword(s):  
South Korea ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Competitive Process ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
The World ◽  
Competition Laws ◽  
The Eu

‘The goals and scope of competition and antitrust laws’ evaluates the goals and scope of competition and antitrust laws. Competition laws seek to protect the competitive process in the marketplace from companies that seek to distort it. By safeguarding free and fair markets, competition laws promote consumer welfare as well as efficiencies in the marketplace. While key competition law principles are similar across the world, competition laws are not internationally uniform, but are instead customized by each jurisdiction. A comparison can be made between US Federal Antitrust Law and the EU competition law. There are also other jurisdictions that apply competition laws, including China, Japan, and South Korea.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document