This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Act of Parliament | |
Long title | An Act to make provision about competition and the abuse of a dominant position in the market; to confer powers in relation to investigations conducted in connection with Article 85 or 86 of the treaty establishing the European Community; to amend the Fair Trading Act 1973 in relation to information which may be required in connection with investigations under that Act; to make provision with respect to the meaning of "supply of services" in the Fair Trading Act 1973; and for connected purposes. |
---|---|
Citation | 1998 c. 41 |
Introduced by | Margaret Beckett, President of the Board of Trade |
Territorial extent | United Kingdom |
Dates | |
Royal assent | 9 November 1998 |
Status: Amended | |
Text of the Competition Act 1998 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk. |
The Competition Act 1998 (c. 41) is the current major source of competition law in the United Kingdom, along with the Enterprise Act 2002. The act provides an updated framework for identifying and dealing with restrictive business practices and abuse of a dominant market position.
One of the main purposes of this act was to harmonise the UK with EU competition policy, with Chapter I and II of the act mirroring the content of Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty of Amsterdam (formally Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome). [1] [2] [3]
Deals with restrictive practices engaged by companies operating within the UK that distort, restrict or prevent competition. These are, primarily in the form of horizontal agreements (agreements to collude between firms on the same level of the supply chain such as retailers or wholesalers). These agreements could be to limit output, collusively share information, fix prices, tender collectively and share markets out.
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is responsible for prosecuting such firms who engage in these activities, and are able to levy fines up to 10% of annual global turnover for every year in which a violation has taken place up to a maximum of 3 years.
Exemptions from prohibition are available if the firm can demonstrate that these practices are in the interest of the consumer through increasing market efficiencies or advancing technical progress.
Chapter II deals with the abuse of a dominant position by a firm who uses practices such as predatory pricing, excessive prices, refusal to supply, vertical restraints and price discrimination to maximise profit, gain competitive advantage or otherwise restrict competition.
In investigating alleged breaches of Chapter II a two-stage process is involved. Firstly it must be identified if the firm possesses a dominant market position. This can be done through various concentration indices such as the Herfindahl-Hirchman Index (HHI). Generally, if a firm is found to have a market share over 40% then it is considered a threat to competition.
There are no exemptions to chapter II as by its very definition as "abuse" of a market position, one must be guilty of wrongdoing for the chapter to apply.
An example of the effects of the act is that in 2004, public schools were investigated for fee-fixing by the Office of Fair Trading, and in 2005 fifty of the leading schools (including Ampleforth, Eton, Charterhouse, Gresham's, Harrow, Haileybury, Marlborough, Rugby, Sevenoaks, Shrewsbury, Stowe, Wellington and Winchester) were ordered to raise £3 million between them to be spent on charities nominated by the pupils of the schools involved in the years 2001–2003, and were banned from further sharing of information on their external fees.
Anti-competitive practices are business or government practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market. Antitrust laws ensure businesses do not engage in competitive practices that harm other, usually smaller, businesses or consumers. These laws are formed to promote healthy competition within a free market by limiting the abuse of monopoly power. Competition allows companies to compete in order for products and services to improve; promote innovation; and provide more choices for consumers. In order to obtain greater profits, some large enterprises take advantage of market power to hinder survival of new entrants. Anti-competitive behavior can undermine the efficiency and fairness of the market, leaving consumers with little choice to obtain a reasonable quality of service.
In the European Union, competition law promotes the maintenance of competition within the European Single Market by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies to ensure that they do not create cartels and monopolies that would damage the interests of society.
Predatory pricing is a commercial pricing strategy which involves the use of large scale undercutting to eliminate competition. This is where an industry dominant firm with sizable market power will deliberately reduce the prices of a product or service to loss-making levels to attract all consumers and create a monopoly. For a period of time, the prices are set unrealistically low to ensure competitors are unable to effectively compete with the dominant firm without making substantial loss. The aim is to force existing or potential competitors within the industry to abandon the market so that the dominant firm may establish a stronger market position and create further barriers to entry. Once competition has been driven from the market, consumers are forced into a monopolistic market where the dominant firm can safely increase prices to recoup its losses.
The rule of reason is a legal doctrine used to interpret the Sherman Antitrust Act, one of the cornerstones of United States antitrust law. While some actions like price-fixing are considered illegal per se, other actions, such as possession of a monopoly, must be analyzed under the rule of reason and are only considered illegal when their effect is to unreasonablyrestrain trade. William Howard Taft, then Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, first developed the doctrine in a ruling on Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. v. United States, which was affirmed in 1899 by the Supreme Court. The doctrine also played a major role in the 1911 Supreme Court case Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States.
Competition law is the field of law that promotes or seeks to maintain market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies. Competition law is implemented through public and private enforcement. It is also known as antitrust law, anti-monopoly law, and trade practices law; the act of pushing for antitrust measures or attacking monopolistic companies is commonly known as trust busting.
State aid in the European Union is the name given to a subsidy or any other aid provided by a government that distorts competition. Under European Union competition law, the term has a legal meaning, being any measure that demonstrates any of the characteristics in Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in that if it distorts competition or the free market, it is classified by the European Union as illegal state aid. Measures that fall within the definition of state aid are considered unlawful unless provided under an exemption or notified by the European Commission. In 2019, the EU member states provided state aid corresponding to 0.81% of the bloc's GDP.
The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia. Prior to 1 January 2011, it was known as the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA). The Act is the legislative vehicle for competition law in Australia, and seeks to promote competition, fair trading as well as providing protection for consumers. It is administered by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) and also gives some rights for private action. Schedule 2 of the CCA sets out the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The Federal Court of Australia has the jurisdiction to determine private and public complaints made in regard to contraventions of the Act.
Market dominance is the control of a economic market by a firm. A dominant firm possesses the power to affect competition and influence market price. A firms' dominance is a measure of the power of a brand, product, service, or firm, relative to competitive offerings, whereby a dominant firm can behave independent of their competitors or consumers, and without concern for resource allocation. Dominant positioning is both a legal concept and an economic concept and the distinction between the two is important when determining whether a firm's market position is dominant.
A vertical agreement is a term used in competition law to denote agreements between firms at different levels of a supply chain. For instance, a manufacturer of consumer electronics might have a vertical agreement with a retailer according to which the latter would promote their products in return for lower prices. Franchising is a form of vertical agreement, and under European Union competition law this falls within the scope of Article 101.
European Union merger law is a part of the law of the European Union. It is charged with regulating mergers between two or more entities in a corporate structure. This institution has jurisdiction over concentrations that might or might not impede competition. Although mergers must comply with policies and regulations set by the commission; certain mergers are exempt if they promote consumer welfare. Mergers that fail to comply with the common market may be blocked. It is part of competition law and is designed to ensure that firms do not acquire such a degree of market power on the free market so as to harm the interests of consumers, the economy and society as a whole. Specifically, the level of control may lead to higher prices, less innovation and production.
Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union prohibits cartels and other agreements that could disrupt free competition in the European Economic Area's internal market.
Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is aimed at preventing businesses in an industry from abusing their positions by colluding to fix prices or taking action to prevent new businesses from gaining a foothold in the industry. Its core role is the regulation of monopolies, which restrict competition in private industry and produce worse outcomes for consumers and society. It is the second key provision, after Article 101, in European Union (EU) competition law.
The history of competition law refers to attempts by governments to regulate competitive markets for goods and services, leading up to the modern competition or antitrust laws around the world today. The earliest records traces back to the efforts of Roman legislators to control price fluctuations and unfair trade practices. Throughout the Middle Ages in Europe, kings and queens repeatedly cracked down on monopolies, including those created through state legislation. The English common law doctrine of restraint of trade became the precursor to modern competition law. This grew out of the codifications of United States antitrust statutes, which in turn had considerable influence on the development of European Community competition laws after the Second World War. Increasingly, the focus has moved to international competition enforcement in a globalised economy.
United Kingdom competition law is affected by both British and European elements. The Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002 are the most important statutes for cases with a purely national dimension. However, prior to Brexit, if the effect of a business' conduct would reach across borders, the European Commission has competence to deal with the problems, and exclusively EU law would apply. Even so, the pre-Brexit section 60 of the Competition Act 1998 provides that UK rules are to be applied in line with European jurisprudence. Like all competition law, that in the UK has three main tasks.
Mergers and acquisitions in United Kingdom law refers to a body of law that covers companies, labour, and competition, which is engaged when firms restructure their affairs in the course of business.
The Competition Act, 2002 was enacted by the Parliament of India and governs Indian competition law. It replaced the archaic The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. Under this legislation, the Competition Commission of India was established to prevent the activities that have an adverse effect on competition in India. This act extends to whole of India.
The Anti Monopoly Law of China is the main legal statute that regulates competition law in the People’s Republic of China. The National People’s Congress passed it in 2007 and it came into effect on 1 August 2008. The law aims to prevent and restrain monopolistic behaviors, protect fair market competition, safeguard consumer interests, and promote the healthy development of the socialist market economy.
The Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) (Urdu: کمپیٹیشن کمیشن آف پاکستان), formerly Monopoly Control Authority, is an independent agency quasi-regulatory, quasi-judicial body of the Government of Pakistan for the enforcement of economic competition laws in Pakistan that helps ensure healthy competition. It was created in 2007 by the President of Pakistan through the promulgation of the Competition Ordinance, 2007 replacing Monopoly Control Authority, later Parliament of Pakistan passed Competition Act, 2010 to give legal cover and powers to the commission. The Commission was established to provide for free competition in all spheres of commercial and economic activity to enhance economic efficiency and to protect consumers from anti competitive behavior.
Mergers in United Kingdom law is a theory-based regulation that helps forecast and avoid abuse, while indirectly maintaining a competitive framework within the market. A true merger is one in which two separate entities merge into an entirely new entity. In Law the term ‘merger’ has a much broader application, for example where A acquires all, or a majority of, the shares in B, and is able to control the affairs of B as such.
United Brands v Commission (1976) Case 27/76 is an EU competition legal case concerning abuse of a dominant position in a relevant product market. The case involved the infamous "green banana clause". It is one of the most famous cases in European competition law, which seeks to ban cartels, collusion and other anti-competitive practices, and to ban abuse of dominant market positions.