Conduct that unlawfully restrains trade or competition in a market, including price fixing between competitors, bid rigging, market allocation agreements, and the abuse of a dominant market position to exclude rivals. Antitrust or competition law, first codified in the United States through the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, treats the most serious violations, such as cartel agreements to fix prices, as criminal offenses in a number of jurisdictions, while others enforce competition law exclusively through civil and administrative penalties. Enforcement is typically carried out by a dedicated competition authority or, in criminal cases, a national prosecuting body.
Facts
Classification CodeIn the United States, antitrust violations are codified primarily under the Sherman Act of 1890, whose section 1 outlaws every contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of interstate or foreign trade, and whose section 2 separately prohibits monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize. 2 Typical PenaltyThe classic remedy for a serious antitrust violation is a forced structural breakup of the offending firm into separate smaller companies, the fate imposed on both Standard Oil and American Telephone and Telegraph in the United States, alongside other remedies such as local loop unbundling, merger controls, and monopoly profit taxes. 2 Elements of OffenseConduct recognized across jurisdictions as an antitrust violation includes tying one product to the sale of another, exclusive dealing or refusal to deal, dividing territories among competitors, price fixing among cartels, and denying competitors access to essential facilities, alongside abuse of a dominant market position more broadly. 2 Notable ExampleIn France Telecom SA v Commission, the European Union found the broadband provider had engaged in predatory pricing by dropping its prices below its own production costs specifically to eliminate competitors, and fined the company 13.9 million dollars. 2 Jurisdiction VariationThe United States and the European Union take different approaches to the same underlying conduct: charging monopoly prices is not itself regulated under United States antitrust law, but European Union competition law treats monopoly pricing as an antitrust offense in its own right. 2 Classification
Offense Grade In the Other Atlases
- Also in Geography Atlas: Europe, found in there.
- Also in Geography Atlas: North America, found in there.
Sources
1. Sherman Antitrust Act (Wikipedia)
Wikipedialead paragraph, first sentenceQuote, lead paragraph, first sentence
The Sherman Antitrust Act (26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7) is a United States antitrust law which prescribes the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce and consequently prohibits unfair monopolies.
2. Competition law (Wikipedia)
WikipediaAmericas, United States antitrust subsection
Section 1 of the Sherman Act declared illegal "every contract, in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations". Section 2 prohibits monopolies, or attempts and conspiracies to monopolize.
Doctrine, Abusive conduct subsection
Common forms of abuse as recognised across jurisdictions include the unfair tying of one product into the sale of another, causing a restriction of consumer choice and depriving competitors of outlets; exclusive dealing or refusal to deal with certain vendors; dividing territories among different companies to reduce competition in those territories; price fixing among cartels; and the deprivation of essential facilities.
Doctrine section
In the United States, monopoly pricing is not inherently regulated, whereas EU law considers it an antitrust offence.
Remedies subsection
Competition and antitrust law can require a large conglomerate to be broken up into separate smaller companies. For example, the United States required American Telephone & Telegraph (AT&T) and Standard Oil to break up.
Doctrine, Abusive conduct subsection, predatory pricing passage
In the EU case of France Telecom SA v. Commission, a broadband internet company was forced to pay $13.9 million for dropping its prices below its own production costs.
View the Source Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.