{"title":"The Unicorn Is a Myth No More: A Ratio Decidendi Analysis on First Official Predatory Pricing Case in Indonesia","authors":"Zaid Zaid","doi":"10.18196/jphk.v3i1.13099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Predatory pricing has long been termed like a dragon or a unicorn because the practice is often considered irrational and therefore impossible to find or at least unlikely to work. However, the case that befell PT Conch South Kalimantan Cement broke the stigma in Indonesia, which was legally proven to practice predatory pricing through the Business Competition Commission Council (KPPU) Case Decision Number: 03/KPPU-L/2020. Considering that predatory pricing is complicated to prove because it requires certain elements to be fulfilled, this research then aims to analyze the predatory pricing elements, which became strong reasons that underlay the KPPU Council's determination of PT Conch South Kalimantan Cement as a predatory business actor so that it is entitled to be punished with billions of rupiah. By applying the normative method with a statutory, conceptual, and case approach through primary and secondary legal materials, which were analyzed by qualitative and prescriptive analysis, this study ultimately found the results that the elements in the form of business actors, supply, goods, selling at a loss or fixing a very low price, eliminating or shutting down the business of its competitors, the relevant market, and causing monopolistic practices and/or unfair business competition have become the ratio decidendi of the KPPU Council in determining the practice of predatory pricing. These reasons can then be used as decisions on similar issues in the future.","PeriodicalId":431385,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Penegakan Hukum dan Keadilan","volume":"144 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Penegakan Hukum dan Keadilan","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18196/jphk.v3i1.13099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
Predatory pricing has long been termed like a dragon or a unicorn because the practice is often considered irrational and therefore impossible to find or at least unlikely to work. However, the case that befell PT Conch South Kalimantan Cement broke the stigma in Indonesia, which was legally proven to practice predatory pricing through the Business Competition Commission Council (KPPU) Case Decision Number: 03/KPPU-L/2020. Considering that predatory pricing is complicated to prove because it requires certain elements to be fulfilled, this research then aims to analyze the predatory pricing elements, which became strong reasons that underlay the KPPU Council's determination of PT Conch South Kalimantan Cement as a predatory business actor so that it is entitled to be punished with billions of rupiah. By applying the normative method with a statutory, conceptual, and case approach through primary and secondary legal materials, which were analyzed by qualitative and prescriptive analysis, this study ultimately found the results that the elements in the form of business actors, supply, goods, selling at a loss or fixing a very low price, eliminating or shutting down the business of its competitors, the relevant market, and causing monopolistic practices and/or unfair business competition have become the ratio decidendi of the KPPU Council in determining the practice of predatory pricing. These reasons can then be used as decisions on similar issues in the future.
掠夺性定价长期以来一直被称为龙或独角兽,因为这种做法通常被认为是非理性的,因此不可能找到,或者至少不太可能奏效。然而,发生在PT Conch South Kalimantan Cement的案件打破了印尼的污名,商业竞争委员会(KPPU)案件裁决号:03/KPPU- l /2020在法律上证明了该公司实施掠夺性定价。考虑到掠夺性定价很难证明,因为它需要满足某些因素,本研究旨在分析掠夺性定价因素,这成为KPPU理事会确定PT海螺南加里曼丹水泥公司为掠夺性商业行为者的有力理由,因此它有权受到数十亿卢比的惩罚。本研究采用规范性方法,通过对一级和二级法律材料进行定性和规范性分析,采用法定、概念和案例的方法,最终发现商业行为者、供应、商品、亏本或低价销售、消除或关闭竞争对手的业务、相关市场、造成垄断行为和/或不正当商业竞争,已成为KPPU理事会在确定掠夺性定价行为时的比例决定因素。这些理由可以作为将来类似问题的决策依据。