Decision-Making Powers and Institutional Design in Competition Cases: The Application of Competition Rules by Sectoral Regulators in the United Kingdom
Jackie Holland, Aurora Luoma, Sep 11, 2014
In the United Kingdom various sectoral regulators have concurrent power to apply EU and U.K. competition law alongside the national competition agency, the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”). It is a somewhat unusual system and there has been much debate over past years about whether this system works effectively or whether it results in the underuse of competition law powers in regulated sectors. Recent reforms in the United Kingdom have sought to reinforce competition law enforcement by sectoral regulators. Moreover, concurrency is on the increase with additional regulators having been given concurrent powers over recent years and the CMA indicating that it will also focus its attention on competition in regulated sectors.
It remains to be seen what these developments mean in practice for the regulated sectors, but we can expect increased efforts to apply competition law in these sectors, both by the CMA and the regulators themselves. The success of these efforts will depend on the institutional design and decision-making structures within sectoral regulators and how well these promote the use of competition law powers, where appropriate, in a consistent and effective manner — something which will need to be worked out by the regulators and CMA on the ground.
In this paper, we focus on the topics of institutional design and decision-making within sectoral regulators in relation to competition cases. We start by considering why there has been so much focus on ensuring that the competition rules are applied in the regulated sectors in the United Kingdom. We then review alternative models for applying competition rules in regulated sectors used in different jurisdictions and consider the internal institutional design factors that might influence the sectoral regulators’ focus on competition cases in the U.K. context.
Featured News
Judge Allows FTC Antitrust Case Against Amazon to Move Forward
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
SAP Leader Urges Caution on EU AI Rules, Warns of Competitive Disadvantage
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Colorado’s Grocery Workers Unite to Oppose $24.6 Billion Supermarket Merge
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Canada’s Competition Bureau Warns Businesses of Tougher Enforcement
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Top Antitrust Lawyers Launch New Boutique Firm
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh