Justus Haucap, Alexander Rasch and Joel Stiebale on ‘How mergers affect innovation: Theory and evidence’ (2019) International Journal of Industrial Organization 63 283

This article, available here, argues that a complete analysis of potential efficiencies from mergers should not only analyse how the merged entity’s prices, quantities and innovation incentives change (i.e., the direct effects of a merger), but also how these change for rival firms (indirect effects). While competition authorities sometimes analyse how mergers directly affect the merged firm’s innovation incentives, especially in high-tech industries, impacts on rivals’ innovation incentives have been rarely mentioned in merger guidelines or competition cases. This is unfortunate, since the effects of mergers on innovation in the relevant market depend on the reactions of non-merging competitors. While there is a growing literature on the effects of mergers on the innovation of the merging firms, evidence on the effects of mergers on outsiders’ innovation incentives is scarce. Thus, this paper studies how horizontal mergers affect the innovation efforts of both the merged entity and its non-merging competitors. Using data on horizontal mergers among pharmaceutical firms in Europe, it…

C. Scott Hemphill and Nancy L. Rose on ‘Mergers that Harm Sellers’ (2018) Yale Law Journal 127(1) 2078

In typical mergers, the main concern is that the parties will be able to raise the prices they charge purchasers. Some mergers, however, reduce competition among competing buyers, thereby reducing the prices that sellers receive for their products and services. These adverse “buy-side” effects may harm a wide variety of sellers, including workers.  This paper, available here, examines the antitrust treatment of mergers that harm sellers. Its central claim is that harm to sellers in an input market is sufficient to support antitrust liability. Part I considers mergers that increase classical monopsony power. Monopsony is used here as the mirror image of monopoly, i.e. market power susceptible of affecting the price of inputs. Monopsony is a frequent concern in labour and agricultural markets. As with lawfully acquired monopoly power, antitrust law does not prohibit the exercise of lawfully acquired monopsony power, despite its economic costs. Yet antitrust problems do arise when buyers increase their monopsony power by combining forces. Agreements…

David Glasner and Sean P. Sullivan on ‘The Logic of Market Definition’ (forthcoming) Antitrust Law Journal

This paper,available here , is not technically about merger control, but it is as relevant here as in any other competition topic – and it fits nicely with wider discussions of market power and market entry, which, as we have seen in past weeks, are common in merger control. While the usefulness of, and methodologies concerning market definition would seem to be well established, in practice both are actively questioned. Some have even argued that market definition is unnecessary in competition law. While this argument is not new, Louis Kaplow has recently advanced this thesis with a particularly pointed argument that: (1) market definition serves no role except to produce market shares, (2) market shares are poor measures of market power, and (3) antitrust would be better served by ignoring market shares and trying to assess market power from estimates of residual-demand curves and the like instead. The goal of this paper is to trace the internal logic of market…

Tommaso Valletti and Hans Zenger on ‘Mergers with differentiated products: Where do we stand?’

This paper, available here, provides an overview of the state of economic analysis of unilateral effects in mergers with differentiated products. It discusses both static and dynamic competition. Section 2 focuses on price competition and discusses the calibration of unilateral effects using diversion-based tools such as upward pricing pressure. One of the most prominent developments of the past decades was to put closeness of substitution at the heart of unilateral effects analysis. It is well known that market shares can be off the mark in trying to account for consumers’ heterogeneous switching patterns between differentiated products. When robust data is available, it is therefore more sensible to assess competitive overlaps directly via diversion ratios than to rely on market shares as an imperfect proxy. Obtaining an estimate of diversion is feasible in many, though far from all, significant mergers (e.g., through switching data, bidding data, customer surveys, event studies or demand estimation). While diversion ratios provide a good indication of…

Pauline Affeldty, Tomaso Dusoz and Florian Szücs on ‘25 Years of European Merger Control’ (2019) DIW Berlin Discussion Paper 179

The first European merger control regime came into force in 1990. Since then, merger control has evolved significantly. This paper, available here, employs a new dataset, comprising all merger cases until 2014 that led to a decision by DG Comp (more than 5,000 individual decisions). The goal of the paper is to evaluate the time dynamics of the European Commission’s decision procedures. Specifically, the paper assesses how consistently different arguments related to so-called structural market parameters – market shares, concentration, likelihood of entry and foreclosure – were deployed by the Commission over time. The paper first estimates the probability of intervention as a function of merger characteristics. It finds that the existence of barriers to entry, increases in concentration and, in particular, the share of product markets with competitive concerns are positively associated with intervention by the Commission. After the reform of 2004, an effects-based approach centred on a clearly stated theory of harm became a cornerstone of EU merger…

Volker Nocke and Michael D. Whinston on ‘Concentration Screens for Horizontal Mergers’ (2020) NBER Working Papers no 27533

Concentration measures play a central role in merger analysis. Existing guidelines identify various presumptions – both safe harbours and presumptions of anticompetitive effects – based on the level of the post-merger Herfindahl index and of the change that the merger induces in that index. These presumptions have a significant impact on agency decisions, especially in screening mergers for further review. However, the basis for these screens, in both form and level, remains unclear. The authors of this paper, available here, show that there is both a theoretical and an empirical basis for focusing solely on changes in the Herfindahl index, and ignoring its level, in screening mergers for whether their unilateral effects will harm consumers. The authors also argue that the levels at which the presumptions currently are set may allow mergers to proceed that cause consumer harm. Section 2 reviews concentration screens in various versions of the US Horizontal Merger Guidelines. The first version of the Merger Guidelines –…

Julian Nowag and Liisa Tarkkila on ‘How much effectiveness for the EU Damages Directive? Contractual clauses and antitrust damages’ (2020) Common Market Law Review 57 433

Market actors often include clauses in contracts which determine the jurisdiction, and/or forum in which any claim arising from the contract may be heard; or clauses which prohibit reassigning a claim or joining a class action. In some situations, these clauses may make it more difficult to obtain full compensation for a competition law infringement. Antitrust victims can be forced to bring damages actions in jurisdictions or before arbitrational tribunals that have less favourable cost and evidential rules; they may also encounter language-related problems. Similarly, preventing forms of collective redress has obvious benefits for defendants whenever a large number of victims only suffered very small individual harm. This paper, available here, explores the extent to which the aims of the Damages Directive and development of a strong EU private enforcement system in Member States’ courts might be undercut by such contractual arrangements. It argues that EU law protects consumers against clauses that could hinder the full effectiveness of the right to compensation…

Michal Gal ‘The Case for Limiting Private Litigation of Excessive Pricing’ (2020) Journal of Competition Law and Economics 15(2-3) 298

Excessive pricing raises strong concerns for private competition litigation, for three reasons: (1) the inherent difficulty of defining what constitutes an unfair price; (2) additional challenges inherent to private excessive pricing litigation, such as the need to pinpoint when exactly a price becomes unfair in order to calculate damages; and (3) the institutional features of general courts in EU member states. Given that private litigation of competition law violations is only beginning to develop in the EU, and collective redress mechanisms are still viewed with caution by many member states, this is exactly the time to ensure that, as private litigation expands, it will increase welfare. This is the purpose of this paper, which is available here. Section 2 addresses the inherent difficulty of determining when a price becomes unfair. The excessive pricing prohibition, though longstanding, suffers from serious and inherent difficulties in its implementation. In particular, it lacks clear and workable criteria. The challenges can be summarised as follows: to decide…