David Bailey ‘The New Frontiers of Article 102 TFEU: antitrust imperialism or judicious intervention?’ (2018) Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 6(1) 25-53

This paper – which can be found here – addresses the way in which EU competition law cuts across and interferes with other legal regimes such as pharmaceutical regulations (Astra Zeneca and patent settlement cases), energy rules (Gazprom) and data protection (Facebook). This has led to a debate about whether EU competition law and policy should be able to trespass on turf that is properly subject to other areas of law, and whether it is appropriate for it to act as a “repair service” for other fields of economic law that lack sanctioning mechanisms. The article is structured as follows: The second section examines four situations in which Article 102 TFEU controversially overlapped with a different area of law. Competition law applies to unilateral business conduct whenever there is an act (or omission) of a dominant undertaking that distorts the competitive process or is directly exploitative of consumers. On the other hand, the application of competition law is usually precluded by…

Chris Fonteijn, Ilan Akker and Wolf Sauter  ‘Reconciling competition and IP law: the case of patented pharmaceuticals and dominance abuse’,  in Gabriella Muscolo and Mariaanna Tavassi (eds.) The Interplay between Competition Law and Intellectual Property – An international perspective (Kluwer Law International, Forthcoming)

The paper – a draft of which can be found here – discusses how competition law may be applied with regard to abuses of dominance involving patented pharmaceuticals. It argues that the pay for delay cases in both the US and the EU are only the first step in exploring the application of competition law to such products. The paper then examines abuses of the patent system with the aim to exclude competitors and, second, whether excessive prices can be sanctioned as regards IP-protected pharmaceutical products. The paper is structured as follows: Section II investigates the interaction between IP and competition law. This has been covered extensively in previous emails, so I will merely summarise the basic points. Inasmuch as IP law creates temporary monopolies, this would seem to create a tension with competition law, but this tension is merely apparent. Both competition and IP law ultimately seek to promote consumer welfare, and the protection granted by IP law does not amount…

Elisabetta Maria Lanza and Paola Roberta Sfasciotti ‘Excessive Price Abuses: The Italian Aspen Case’ (2018) Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 9(6) 382

This paper – which can be found here – is of particular interest because the authors were the case handlers in this case, which is one of the (very) few recent cases on excessive pricing. The paper begins with a discussion of why enforcement against excessive pricing is frowned upon by competition agencies (and absolutely discarded in the US). First, there may be a negative impact on investment caused by limits to a company’s freedom to set prices, which may limit its ability to recover capital invested in research. Second, in normal conditions regulatory intervention is unnecessary: the market will self-correct, because excessive prices will stimulate the entry of competitors into the market. Third, as a rule competition authorities seek to avoid having to decide what is the ‘correct’ or ‘fair’ price, since this would require a judgement which is closer to the competences of a sectoral regulator. Fourth, the analysis of situations of excessive pricing faces significant difficulties in…

ric Biber, Sarah Light (Berkeley), J. B. Ruhl, and James Salzman (UCLA) “Regulating Business Innovation as Policy Disruption: From the Model T to Airbnb” (2017) 70 Vand. L. Rev. 1561

The argument of this paper – which can be found here – is straightforward: scholarship about the platform economy has been ahistorical; focusing on the immediacy and novelty of the platform economy misses the fact that its interaction with the legal system does not raise fundamentally new questions from a law and policy perspective. From a business or economic perspective, history is full of technological and management advances that fundamentally disrupted business models over a brief period of time. This is not to say that current developments do not pose challenges to public policy. Regulatory policy generally—even necessarily—presumes a certain kind of organizational model for the activities that it regulates.  When business innovation upends that pre-existing model, the result is a disjunction between the structure of the regulatory system and the industry that is being regulated: a policy disruption. This has occurred in the past. Debates over whether and how the regulatory system should adjust to the rise of platforms…

Niamh Dunne ‘Competition Law (and its Limits) in the Sharing Economy’ Forthcoming, Nestor Davidson, Michèle Finck and John Infranca (eds.), Cambridge Handbook on Law and Regulation of the Sharing Economy (Cambridge University Press)

As the title indicates: ‘This contribution (which can be found here) considers the potential application of competition law—specifically, the ‘antitrust’ rules governing anticompetitive unilateral or coordinated conduct—within the sharing economy.’ The sharing economy is described as a sector marked by recurrent characteristics, such as: (i) its underlying economic rationale is the under-utilisation of durable goods or other assets, which generates excess capacity that can be rented out; (ii) sharing economy businesses provide classic examples of ‘disruptive’ innovation, which originates outside a value network and displaces it; (iii) the innovations that underpin the sharing economy are rooted in the internet and mobile technologies; (iv) sharing economy businesses are often platforms in multi-sided markets; (v) sharing economy firms frequently conflict with regulatory regimes that control and limit the activities of competitors, resulting in recurrent critiques that such competition is inherently ‘unfair’. The paper is structured as follows: Section II examines how prohibitions against anticompetitive unilateral conduct may apply to the sharing economy. It begins…

Angela Daly ‘Beyond Hipster Antitrust:  A Critical Perspective on the European Commission’s Google Decision’ (2017) European Competition and Regulation Law Review 1(3) 188

The argument of this article – which can be found here – is straightforward: “competition law as it stands is not well-equipped to address (all of) the problems a very large concentration of private power such as Google poses to Internet users. However, unlike the ‘antitrust hipsters’, it is argued that reform to competition law is insufficient – other areas of law and regulation may be more appropriately employed to ensure user autonomy in these circumstances.” The paper begins with an extremely cursory analysis of the Commission’s decision in the Google case. Since the decision is not yet published, the paper relies on comments from the Competition Commissioner that there was an abuse because Google: “promoted its own comparison shopping service in its generic search results, and demoted the results of its competitors, with the effect that competitors were ‘denied… the chance to compete on the merits and to innovate’ and European consumers were ‘denied… a genuine choice of services…

Friso Bostoen ‘Margin Squeeze – Where competition law and sector regulation compete’ (2017) 53 Jura Falconis 3

This paper – which you can find here – provides an overview of margin squeeze as an antitrust infringement – i.e. the situation where a dominant undertaking charges “a price for the product on the upstream market which, compared to the price it charges on the downstream market, does not allow even an equally efficient competitor to trade profitably in the downstream market on a lasting basis”. The paper also looks at the relationship between margin squeeze and sectoral regulation. The article starts with an overview of the different ways an undertaking can abuse its dominant position through pricing (chapter 2). It then defines margin squeeze (chapter 3), before looking at how margin squeeze is assessed in a number of EU cases (chapter 4) and into the role of the as-efficient-competitor test in identifying margin squeeze situations (chapter 5). It then discusses why some undertakings appear to be more susceptible to commit this abuse than others, and lists the traits such…

Orla Lynskey ‘Regulating ‘Platform Power” LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 1/2017

This paper – which can be found here – is not strictly about competition, but has a wider regulatory focus. Its main arguments are that: (i) the term ‘platform power’ fails to reflect the potentially problematic power at the heart of the information society. Focus should therefore shift from this concept to the identification of concerns raised by the practices of Internet intermediaries; (ii) blind spots exist when the issue of ‘platform power’ is viewed solely through an economic lens. As a result, competition law fails to capture and sanction practices that negatively impact upon non-economic parameters, such as freedom of expression and privacy. The argument about platform power is made out in Section 2, and it is broken down into three different elements: The initial focus of the argument is on the EU’s attempts to address developments in the digital sphere, and in particular on the European Commission’s Digital Market strategy. The various meanings given in Europe to “platforms”…