Abuse of economic dependence and its interaction with competition policy: the economics perspective

Q4 Social Sciences
Roberto Alimonti, Matthew Johnson
{"title":"Abuse of economic dependence and its interaction with competition policy: the economics perspective","authors":"Roberto Alimonti, Matthew Johnson","doi":"10.4337/clj.2022.02.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A number of jurisdictions, including in the European Union, have adopted legal provisions that ban situations in which one contractual party holds and abuses a position of economic strength relative to a counterparty. This practice, typically referred to as ‘abuse of economic dependence’, can be invoked by companies before national courts, or by or before national competition authorities if they deem that such abuse has implications for competition. A recent yet sudden increase in abuse of economic dependence decisions by national competition authorities indicates that this enforcement tool is gaining traction, possibly due to its lower evidentiary bar compared to the more established abuse of dominance under EU or national competition law. However, if competition policy is intended to protect competition and ultimately consumers, it is unclear how the relationship between two companies can affect competition, especially if the stronger negotiating party is not dominant and the weaker party is too small to make a tangible impact on consumer welfare ‒ unless the same contractual terms are imposed on a large number of weaker parties.\n\nThis article sets out the principal provisions of such legislation in Belgium, France, Germany and Italy and its enforcement in France and Italy, before considering the economics of bargaining and offering some policy recommendations and conclusions. This article shows that the issues that laws prohibiting the abuse of economic dependence are intended to safeguard can be dealt with by other means, for example contract law. If it is intended to apply these legal provisions to highly innovative sectors such as digital, other regulatory tools may be better placed to bring competition and fairness in the online world, such as the EU’s Digital Markets Act. Nevertheless, it is likely that these enforcement tools will be used more often. As such, it is important to set high thresholds for when such enforcement tools can be used by competition authorities and to introduce quantitative analyses to inform their assessment.","PeriodicalId":36415,"journal":{"name":"Competition Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Competition Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/clj.2022.02.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A number of jurisdictions, including in the European Union, have adopted legal provisions that ban situations in which one contractual party holds and abuses a position of economic strength relative to a counterparty. This practice, typically referred to as ‘abuse of economic dependence’, can be invoked by companies before national courts, or by or before national competition authorities if they deem that such abuse has implications for competition. A recent yet sudden increase in abuse of economic dependence decisions by national competition authorities indicates that this enforcement tool is gaining traction, possibly due to its lower evidentiary bar compared to the more established abuse of dominance under EU or national competition law. However, if competition policy is intended to protect competition and ultimately consumers, it is unclear how the relationship between two companies can affect competition, especially if the stronger negotiating party is not dominant and the weaker party is too small to make a tangible impact on consumer welfare ‒ unless the same contractual terms are imposed on a large number of weaker parties. This article sets out the principal provisions of such legislation in Belgium, France, Germany and Italy and its enforcement in France and Italy, before considering the economics of bargaining and offering some policy recommendations and conclusions. This article shows that the issues that laws prohibiting the abuse of economic dependence are intended to safeguard can be dealt with by other means, for example contract law. If it is intended to apply these legal provisions to highly innovative sectors such as digital, other regulatory tools may be better placed to bring competition and fairness in the online world, such as the EU’s Digital Markets Act. Nevertheless, it is likely that these enforcement tools will be used more often. As such, it is important to set high thresholds for when such enforcement tools can be used by competition authorities and to introduce quantitative analyses to inform their assessment.
经济依赖的滥用及其与竞争政策的互动:经济学视角
包括欧洲联盟在内的一些司法管辖区已经通过了法律条款,禁止一个合同方持有和滥用相对于对方的经济实力地位的情况。这种做法通常被称为“滥用经济依赖”,如果公司认为这种滥用对竞争有影响,可以在国家法院或国家竞争主管部门或其面前援引。最近,国家竞争主管部门滥用经济依赖决定的情况突然增加,这表明这一执法工具越来越受欢迎,可能是因为与欧盟或国家竞争法中更为常见的滥用主导地位行为相比,其证据门槛较低。然而,如果竞争政策旨在保护竞争并最终保护消费者,那么尚不清楚两家公司之间的关系会如何影响竞争,尤其是如果实力较强的谈判方不占主导地位,而实力较弱的一方太小,无法对消费者福利产生切实影响——除非对大量实力较弱的各方施加相同的合同条款。本文阐述了比利时、法国、德国和意大利的此类立法的主要条款,以及法国和意大利的执行情况,然后考虑了谈判的经济学,并提出了一些政策建议和结论。这篇文章表明,禁止滥用经济依赖的法律旨在保障的问题可以通过其他方式来解决,例如合同法。如果打算将这些法律条款应用于数字等高度创新的行业,那么其他监管工具可能更适合在网络世界中带来竞争和公平,例如欧盟的《数字市场法》。尽管如此,这些执法工具很可能会被更频繁地使用。因此,重要的是为竞争主管部门何时可以使用这种执法工具设定高门槛,并引入定量分析,为其评估提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Competition Law Journal
Competition Law Journal Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信