Seth Sacher, Jul 28, 2013
In a recent working paper, Damien Geradin and Caio Marioda Silva Pereira Neto (hereafter GN) argue that the Brazilian competition system would greatly benefit from the adoption of guidelines like the European Commission Guidance Paper, which offers a legal and economic methodology to implement an “effects-based approach” to vertical restraints adopted by a dominant firm. This paper notes that while their proposed effects based analysis is far superior to per se treatment of vertical restraints, this framework can be further improved by careful attention to the challenges raised by the so-called “Chicago School” regarding the impact of vertical restraints. Further, whether it would be advisable for Brazil to write formal guidances regarding its policy toward vertical restraints should be evaluated in light of both the nature of Brazilian competition laws and the flexibility of the Brazilian economy.
GN begin with an excellent overview of the evolution of economic thinking regarding vertical restraints by a dominant firm. Thus, before the 1950s, vertical relationships between a dominant supplier and its customers that restricted the ability of those customers to deal with the dominant firm’s rivals were viewed as unambiguously anticompetitive based on a rather underdeveloped concept of monopoly leveraging or foreclosure. These concepts do not appear to have been well thought out or modeled, but the idea is that the monopolist could somehow leverage its monopoly power in one market into another.
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