Dennis Lu, Guofu Tan, Jul 28, 2013
Since the introduction of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law in 2008, private litigation has been increasing in the areas of monopolistic agreements and abuses of dominance. In addition, China’s Supreme People’s Court recently issued its judicial interpretation concerning the application of the law in order to offer some guidance in resolving private disputes. The purpose of this paper is to explain how competition economics can help to provide evidence in these private litigations. We discuss how the Anti-Monopoly Law and the judicial interpretation seem to take a rule of reason approach, as well as what roles economic analyses and economists may play in related litigation. We describe the economic evidence being used and accepted in recent Chinese cases that have reached the Chinese courts of appeals and further provide our views on what other evidence could have been offered in these cases.
In 2008, China introduced its Anti-Monopoly Law (AML), possibly as a way to further competition in its economy. Even as public enforcement of the law develops, private litigation has become a fast-growing area.1 Complementing this growth, China’s Supreme People’s Court issued its judicial interpretation (JI), the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Law in Adjudication of Monopoly-Related Civil Disputes, on May 8, 2012, in order to offer some guidance in resolving private disputes. A challenge in enforcing the law is the need to develop supporting evidence, which requires an understanding of how business firms behave and compete. The field of industrial organization in economics helps to address this need. Its general focus is on the theory of the firm and business strategies; it expands the standard textbook model of perfect competition to imperfect competition, accounting for such more realistic factors as product differentiation, strategic interactions, and choice dynamics. Supporting evidence for litigation can then be developed from these factors, as well as from reasoning in this field. The purpose of this paper is to explain how economics, particularly antitrust economics, can help to provide evidence in the context of new and evolving private antitrust litigation in China.
Links to Full Content
Featured News
Congress Pushes to Combat AI Deepfakes in Year-End Funding Deal
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Games Board Resignations Linked to DOJ Antitrust Investigation
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Renault Supports Potential Honda-Nissan Merger Talks
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea’s Antitrust Body Raises Concerns Over AI Market Competition
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Perplexity Caught in Crossfire as DOJ and Google Battle Over Search Dominance
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Remedies After Illumina/GRAIL– The Thorny Question of Proportionality
Dec 17, 2024 by
Aleksander Tombinski & Ciara Denihan
Why Was Illumina/GRAIL Blocked in the EU? Reviewing The European Commission’s Assessment of Vertical Mergers in Light of the 2022 Prohibition Decision
Dec 17, 2024 by
Will Sparks
The Role of Uncertainty in the Future European Horizontal Merger Guidelines: Lessons Learned From Illumina/GRAIL
Dec 17, 2024 by
Svend Albaek & Daniel Donath
Illumina’s Light on Article 22 EUMR: The Suspended Step and Uncertain Future of EU Merger Control Over Below-Threshold “Killer” Mergers
Dec 17, 2024 by
Anna Tzanaki
EU-Level Jurisdiction Over “Killer Acquisitions” in the Aftermath of Illumina/GRAIL
Dec 17, 2024 by
Peter Whelan