Enforcement Of Anti-Monopoly Law Research Articles

Current Positions of the Collegial Bodies of the FAS Russia on Issues of Appeal Against Decisions on Cases of Violations of Antimonopoly Requirements for Trading, Request for Quotations of Prices for Goods, Request for Proposals

The current approaches of the collegial bodies of the Federal Antimonopoly Service to the consideration of cases of violations of antimonopoly requirements for trading, request for quotations of prices for goods, request for proposals established by Art. 17 of the Federal Law of 26.07.2006 No. 135-FZ "On Protection of Competition" (hereinafter referred to as the Law on Protection of Competition).The positions of the collegial bodies of the FAS Russia are of particular importance both for territorial antimonopoly bodies and for courts in cases of violations of antimonopoly laws and, of course, make a significant contribution to the development of antimonopoly law enforcement practice and maintaining its uniformity.In order to analyze the current positions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia on various issues of antimonopoly law enforcement in the most comprehensive and needs-based law enforcement practice, a number of cases examined by the collegial bodies of this department in the second half of 2023 were studied

Research on Market Definition of Digital Economy and Case Analysis: Based on the Perspective of Bilateral Market

In recent years, with the continuous development of digital economy, regulating the healthy development of platform economy has become an important issue. China's relevant government departments call for a clear adherence to the principles of “fair competition”, and for the strengthening of anti-monopoly and the establishment and improvement of market supervision to adapt to the development of the digital economy. In the process of anti-monopoly law enforcement, the relevant market definition is usually regarded as the logical starting point of analyzing the competitive behavior. Compared with traditional enterprises, platform enterprises have bilateral market characteristics such as “cross network externality” and “asymmetric price structure”, which face challenges in defining their relevant markets. This article first clear the bilateral market meaning, then discusses the platform enterprise bilateral market characteristics, and sort out the scholars in recent years about “define a single or multiple market” “assumed monopolist test is applicable”point of view, finally analyzed the “Sherpa's Abused Market Dominance” “Tangshan Renren Company v.Baidu Case” “Qihoo360 v.Tencent Case” three Chinese anti-monopoly law enforcement cases. The aim is to further discuss how to better combine the theoretical investigation and case analysis of qualitative and quantitative analysis to define the relevant market more accurately.

중국 반독점법 2022년 개정법의 실체법적 개정사항

On June 24, 2022, at the 35th meeting of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People's Congress, the amendment to the Anti-monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China was passed. It was decided to go into effect on August 1st. This is the first amendment to China's Anti-monopoly Law since its implementation in 2008. A new purpose was proposed in maintaining an orderly market system. This amendment adds innovation encouragement to the legislative purpose of the Anti-monopoly Law, in line with Xi Jinping's leadership's keynote on state affairs, which has emphasized technological innovation. It is specified in this law that it is responsible. In the 2018 central organizational reorganization, the newly established State Administration for Market Regulation, the Anti-monopoly Bureau, which was in charge of anti-monopoly work that had been distributed among the Ministry of Commerce, Development and Development, and the General Administration of Industry and Trade, was separated into a vice-ministerial level organization and upgraded to the State Anti-monopoly Bureau. The amendment bans monopoly, exclusion, and competition restrictions that abuse administrative power, and strengthens the level of punishment, such as significantly increasing the level of fines and linking antitrust penalties with credit records. Clarify the criteria for screening and classifying managers to strengthen screening of managers related to the national economy and livelihood, while introducing a safe harbor rule to exclude managers from sanctions if they prove that their market share is lower than the anti-monopoly standards made with In addition, managers who provide “substantial help” in concluding and implementing monopoly agreements are also subject to sanctions. The amendment is a review of China's anti-monopoly law enforcement over the past 10 years during the deliberation of the revision of the Chinese anti-monopoly law, and can be seen as a summary of legal practice experience. This is a demand inherent in the development of China's socialist market economy, and can help meet the objective demand of the new development pattern. It is conducive to introducing Chinese anti-monopoly law supervision and strengthening anti-monopoly law enforcement, which will be scientifically and objectively conducive.

Current Positions of the Collegial Bodies of the FAS Russia on the Application of Antimonopoly Legislation in Cases of Misapplication of Dominance (on the Example of the Cases of the IV Quarter of 2022)

This article reveals the modern attitudes of the Collegial bodies of the Federal Antimonopoly Service, used in the framework of the revision of decisions of territorial antimonopoly administrations on cases of misapplication of dominance.It is important to note that the positions of the Collegial bodies of the FAS Russia are significant important in antimonopoly law enforcement practice. Interpretation of competition law by the appellate boards of the antimonopoly service, among other things, contributes to maintaining the uniformity of law enforcement practice and clarifying certain provisions of the antitrust law.In this regard the cases considered by the Collegial bodies of the FAS Russia are important for the development of antitrust practice.To disclose the current positions of the FAS Russia more fully and practically on various issues of antimonopoly enforcement, the article will analyze some examples of cases considered by the agency in the fourth quarter of 2022.

Current Positions of the Collegial Bodies of the FAS Russia on the Application of Antimonopoly Legislation in Cases of Anticompetitive Agreements (on the Example of the Cases of the II and III Quarters of 2022)

This article reveals the modern attitudes of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS Russia) applied by the agency when considering cases of violation of antimonopoly legislation in cases of anticompetitive agreements.The attitudes of the FAS Russia often play a significant role both for the FAS Russia territorial agencies and for courts in cases of violation of antimonopoly legislation. The cases considered by the Collegial Bodies of the FAS Russia are essential for the development of antimonopoly law enforcement practice and maintaining its consistency.To disclose the current positions of the FAS Russia more fully and practically on various issues of antimonopoly enforcement, the article will consider some examples of cases considered by the agency in the II and III quarter of 2022.

Study on the System of Restrictive Conditions Attached to Operator Concentration

Concentration will improve the production efficiency, but also effective in the market competition, there are two kinds of guard against the risk measures, attach restrictive conditions that prohibit concentration and concentration system, the former is relatively complete, equal to restore the original state, the latter is relatively mild, not only can improve the economic benefit, Can also effectively avoid the adverse impact of concentration on the market. Anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies should constantly strengthen the centralized examination of business operators, improve the examination system, improve the efficiency of the examination, and build the anti-monopoly examination system of business operators concentrated in accordance with the level of economic development in China. So how to use the anti-monopoly law to effectively promote the concentration of operators at the same time to reduce its negative impact on the economy, the concentration of operators with restrictive conditions system effective use will have long-term significance. Therefore, according to the existing problems of additional restrictive conditions of concentration of business.

Actual Positions of the Collegial Bodies of the FAS Russia on the Application of Antimonopoly Legislation in Cases of Unfair Competition (on the Example of Cases of the II Quarter of 2022)

This article reveals the modern attitudes of the Federal Antimonopoly Service applied by the agency when considering cases of violation of antimonopoly legislation in cases of unfair competition.The attitudes of the FAS Russia often play a significant role both for territorial agency (OFAS) and for courts in cases of violation of antimonopoly legislation. The cases considered by the Collegial Bodies of the FAS Russia are essential for the development of antimonopoly law enforcement practice and maintaining its consistency.In order to more fully and practically disclose the current positions of the FAS Russia on various issues of antimonopoly enforcement, the article will consider some examples of cases considered by the agency in the 2nd quarter of 2022.

China’s Antimonopoly Law Enforcement in the Digital Economy

The year 2021 was the first remarkable year of Chinese anti-monopoly law enforcement in the digital economy. Against the macro backdrop of strengthening anti-monopoly and preventing the disorderly expansion of capital, China has closed high-profile cases and enacted relevant guiding documents, implying that competition in the digital economy is undergoing a revolution in China. However, with the strengthening anti-monopoly enforcement in the digital economy, China has also been confronted with new challenges. For example, how to make sure that the interconnectivity between platforms and data interoperability do not interfere with data security, personal privacy, and consumers’ legitimate rights and interests? How to balance the curbing of almost unconstrained digital ecosystems and the enhancement of economic efficiency? With the emergence of digital giants, profound changes are taking place in the competitive relationships between various market participants, while the advantages and disadvantages of capital growth have become increasingly prominent. We propose competition authorities worldwide to learn from and cooperate with each other to solve monopolistic problems in the digital economy, considering it is a global matter.

Cause Analysis and Enlightenment of “Certainty” in China’s Anti-monopoly Administrative Law Enforcement and Prospect of Law Enforcement in Tobacco Industry

China’s anti-monopoly administrative law enforcement is highly certain, that is, most parties generally abandon the filing of administrative lawsuits after receiving the punishment decision made by the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency. “Certainty“ is formed by the three factors: illegal acts generally lack actionable value; the parties lack reasonable expectations towards changing the punishment way and reducing the punishment amount; and there are abundant formal punishment and substantive reconciliation. In this context, it is necessary to build scientific law enforcement rules and flexible law enforcement mechanisms to reduce false interventions in “false positives”. At the same time, we need perfect the anti-monopoly follow-up litigation to reinforce the link between anti-monopoly civil litigation and administrative law enforcement. However, in industries with monopoly license such as tobacco industry, it is also necessary to explore the establishment of a public interest litigation mechanism to protect the interests of market subjects at the same time of safeguarding social public interests.

The Anti-monopoly Principles of Resale Price Maintenance under Platform Economy

Digital economy requires the establishment of an effective antitrust enforcement system to guarantee the high-quality enforcement of Anti-monopoly Law. In recent years, the resale price maintenance （RPM） has been a focal point in the judicial practice of antitrust enforcement in China. However, the proper application of anti-monopoly principles towards resale price maintenance （RPM） has been in great controversy. Based on analyzing the development of per se rule and rule of reason, we investigate their core and point out that per se rule and rule of reason are complementary, and rule of reason is a system that embodies the economic fact, the economic theory, and the procedure guarantee. In platform economy, resale price maintenance （RPM） has three new features, which are conducting resale price maintenance （RPM） by algorithm, mainly conducted on online platforms with the characteristic of two-sided market, influencing multiple subjects and markets in terms of its economic impact. The efficiency effects of resale price maintenance （RPM） are mainly reflected by overcoming the problem of “free riding” in distribution, achieving network effects, proving high quality, stimulating creativity, etc. The anti-competitive effects of resale price maintenance （RPM） are mainly reflected by facilitating price collusion, market foreclosure, and exploitative pricing. Therefore, it is appropriate to apply rule of reason in specific case review. In platform economy, the application of rule of reason in resale price maintenance （RPM） cases should focus on the analysis of its impact on non-price factors, strengthen algorithm investigation, and fully consider the unique features of platform economy, such as network effects, multi-homing, etc.Despite the fact that the anti-monopoly authority conducts a prudent enforcement and some economic analysis, according to the Antimonopoly Law of China, the antimonopoly rule for resale price maintenance （RPM） cases is per se rule. The judicial practice of China anti-monopoly enforcement demonstrates that multiple reasons can affect enforcement quality and increase the risk of enforcement fault, and that is the simple application of per se rule, the follow-up enforcement of local anti-monopoly authorities, the different principles applied between admiration and judicial authorities, and the inconsistency of punishment standards. It is necessary to stick to rule of reason as the basic principle for vertical restraints and construct the system by strengthening the core of rule of reason to guarantee the high-quality enforcement of Anti-monopoly Law.

China’s Anti-Monopoly Law and the role of economics in its enforcement

China has made significant achievements in enforcing its 2008 Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) during the past twelve years. We review the application of economics by the China’s competition law enforcers and courts in dealing with antitrust cases. We discuss selected cases to illustrate the application of the relevant theories of competition harms. While the use of economics in its AML enforcement is consistent with international best practice, China can benefit from further raising the deterrence effect of the AML, increasing enforcement resources, and enhancing its cost-effectiveness of its Fair Competition Review system.

The Interior Appeal of the FAS of Russia: the Role of Legal Positions in the Development of Uniformity of Law Enforcement Practice

The article discusses some problems of the formation of a uniform law enforcement practice on the example of specific decisions of the FAS Russia Board of Appeals on issues related to: the application of the rules for the qualification of antitrust violations provided for in part 1 of art. 10 of the Federal Law «On Protection of Competition»; the need to prove the fulfillment of an agreement prohibited by art.16 of the same Law; the exercise of the right of the FAS Russia collegial bodies to refer the matter for a new consideration to the territorial antimonopoly body. It is concluded that the legal positions of the Appeal Board of FAS Russia, being based on the law and applied only in compliance with the law, help to effectively resolve controversial problems of pre-trial Antimonopoly law enforcement and to develop uniform approaches to the interpretation of the rules of competition law.

The Application of Consumer Interests in China's Anti-monopoly Law Enforcement: Take the Cases of Industry and Commerce Bureau as an Example

Article 1 of China's Anti-monopoly Law stipulates that one of its legislative purposes is to protect the interests of consumers. In the Article 15 of China's Anti-monopoly Law, it is explicitly required that the exemption from monopoly agreements is "enable consumers to share the benefits." How to Interpret Consumer Interests in China's Anti-monopoly Law Enforcement? Is this interpretation consistent and clear? What is the difference with other jurisdictions? What is the problem? This paper will only choose Industry and Commerce Bureau 's cases to analyse, in the view of consumer interests. Eventually we will know the application of consumer interests in China's Anti-monopoly Law Enforcement, through the analysis and understanding of the cases.

Governing China's Administrative Monopolies Under the Anti-Monopoly Law: A Ten-Year Review (2008-2018) and Beyond

The enforcement of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) against administrative monopolies has made some achievements in the last decade. However, prominent shortcomings, including the limited concluded cases, the inadequate expertise of competition agencies and some courts, and the ill-designed Chapter 5 of AML, still exist. Three major reasons may explain such shortcomings. First, the legislature adopted a very narrow scope of administrative monopolies. Second, the legislature introduced an improper “standard of legitimacy” into Chapter 5. Third, the legislature overstated the Chinese characteristics of these distortions, and truthfully (but improperly) authorized other administrative bodies, rather than competition agencies, to rectify them. This paper, built on China’s and international experience and the fundamental understanding of competition mechanism, first takes a strictly logical approach to devise a comprehensive solution to enhance the effectiveness of AML enforcement. This feasible solution is consisted of four interconnected pillars. Firstly, it advises the State Council to timely upgrade the Fair Competition Review System to grant larger policy review power to competition agencies. Secondly, it proposes that competition agencies need to adopt new tools to facilitate a more vigorous competition advocacy program. Thirdly, it urges the competition agencies and courts to strengthen enforcement and only accept limited government conduct defenses. It advocates that the legislature has to confirm that AML enjoys supremacy among all laws and regulations, except the Constitution Law, in regard to the regulation of the unreasonable government distortions of competition. Finally, it appeals to the legislature for partially or entirely authorizing competition agencies to litigate such government conducts in China’s intermediate courts.

The PRC NDRC Case against Qualcomm: A Misguided Venture or Justified Enforcement of Competition Law?

The Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) has attracted much attention in recent years. There have been accusations of protectionism and of the AML being used to target foreign companies. Against this backdrop, the investigation by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) against Qualcomm over the latter’s licensing practices was especially controversial. This was particularly so because China has long complained about the high licensing fees its domestic manufacturers have to pay to foreign patentees. And Qualcomm is a major licensor of communications technologies and earns a very considerable amount of licensing revenue in China. Qualcomm was eventually slapped the largest fine in the history of Chinese AML enforcement and subject to a number of behavioural remedies. The question arises as to whether the NDRC decision was a poorly reasoned protectionist venture or was in fact consistent with sound competition law principles. This article attempts to answer this question by critically evaluating the reasoning of the decision. It finds that even though the NDRC reached the correct conclusion on some of the claims, the analysis and the reasoning leave much to be desired.

Chinese antitrust—a snapshot

China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) has been in force for over six and half years. This article argues that there has been a gradual yet perceptible change in the quality and intensity of AML enforcement over the years, with the fifth anniversary of the AML’s effectiveness as the somewhat arbitrary ‘turning point’. Indeed, over the past few years, the normative work—in terms of drafting AML implementing rules and guidance—of the three antitrust authorities has decreased, while the handling of actual enforcement cases has increased. Moreover, the cases investigated have become more high profile: the investigation by the National Development and Reform Commission against Qualcomm, the action by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce against Microsoft, and the prohibition by the Ministry of Commerce of the P3 transaction symbolize this trend. I . INTRODUCTION China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) has been in force for over six and half years. In August 2013, the AML’s five-year anniversary since its foundation was celebrated. In a way, the AML’s fifth anniversary marked a qualitative change in the implementation and enforcement of the AML—the initial phase of laying the groundwork for antitrust enforcement had come to an end. If we were to use merger control jargon, we would say that AML enforcement entered into ‘phase 2’. In this article, we will summarily examine the AML’s history during its first five years of operation, briefly go through the most recent developments, and describe existing achievements and challenges. We will do so by looking at each of the three antitrust agencies with AML enforcement powers, as well as the courts, separately. When the AML was enacted in August 2007, the law provided for an unidentified ‘anti-monopoly enforcement authority’ (or authorities) under the State Council to be in charge of the enforcement work. Shortly after the law came into force a year * Xiaoye Wang, Distinguished Professor of Law at Hunan University and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and Member of the Consultative Expert Panel of the Anti-Monopoly Commission under the State Council of the People’s Republic of China. Email: wangxiaoye88@live.cn † Adrian Emch, Partner at Hogan Lovells in Beijing, and lecturer at Peking University. Email: adrian.emch@hoganlovells.com. The author would like to thank LYU Qing and CONG Shan for their help in preparing this article. 1 Anti-Monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China [2007] Presidential Order No 68, 30 August 2007. 2 Maureen K Ohlhausen, ‘Illuminating the Story of China’s Anti-monopoly Law’ [2013] Antitrust Source 12.

How China's Enforcement of Its Anti-Monopoly Law Poses Risks to Multinational Companies

China’s recent enforcement of its Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) has caused alarm and concern among Multinational Companies (MNCs). Many MNCs believe that the primary purpose of China’s AML is not to create open, fair, and market-based competition but is to serve the Industrial Policy goals of China’s ruling Communist Party. These goals result in the enforcement of the AML in favor of Chinese companies, especially China’s massive State-owned Enterprises, at the expense of MNCs doing business in China. In addition, China’s AML enforcement authorities seem to be using the AML to force MNCs to transfer their valuable technologies (intellectual property rights) at below market rates to Chinese firms and to force price reductions of their products sold in China. AML enforcement authorities also appear to be using the AML to protect famous Chinese brands from being acquired by foreign firms. China’s use of the AML appears to be consistent with China’s overall goal of strengthening its position as a global economic power.

Chinese Antitrust - A Snapshot

China's Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) has been in force for over six and half years. This paper argues that there has been a gradual yet perceptible change in the quality and intensity of AML enforcement over the years, with the fifth anniversary of the AML's effectiveness as the somewhat arbitrary turning point. Indeed, over the past few years, the normative work – in terms of drafting AML implementing rules and guidance – of the three antitrust authorities has decreased, while the handling of actual enforcement cases has increased. Moreover, the cases investigated have become more high-profile: the investigation by the National Development and Reform Commission against Qualcomm, the action by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce against Microsoft, and the prohibition by the Ministry of Commerce of the P3 transaction symbolize this trend.

Administrative Monopoly Regulation on China’s Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement

Administrative Monopoly Regulation on China’s Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement

A retrospective analysis of the effects of airline mergers on China Eastern's ‘lifeline’ routes: a difference-in-differences approach

We have seen a wave of mega airline mergers in the past few years including Air France/KLM, Delta/Northwest (NW) and United/Continental. However, literature examining the post-merger effects remains sparse. Using a difference-in-differences (DD) approach, this study examines the airfares on China Eastern's three ‘lifeline’ routes, Shanghai–Beijing, Shanghai–Guangzhou and Shanghai–Shenzhen, after the 2002 airline mergers that eliminated six state-owned airlines and resulted in three large airline groups. Passengers on these important routes seem to have not been adversely impacted, and even in 2007, the airfares were not significantly higher than that of the 2002 level despite the rise in fuel price, which may provide some evidence to support the 2009 merger between China Eastern and Shanghai Airlines and justify a lenient anti-trust treatment of mergers in China's airline industry. Retrospectively examining the actual effects of consummated mergers in China including this research has significant policy implications for the new Anti-Monopoly Law enforcement agencies that have little experience and knowledge in dealing with airline mergers and alliances at this stage.