List of price fixing cases

Last updated

This is a partial list of notable price fixing and bid rigging cases.

Contents

Australia

Airlines

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has taken several airlines to the Federal Court of Australia seeking penalties for alleged price fixing contraventions. As of 2011, the ACCC's activities are:

Qantas

The ACCC instituted proceedings against Qantas seeking penalties for alleged price fixing contraventions relating to fuel surcharges applied to international carriage of air cargo between 2002 and early 2006. [1] The conduct concerned collusion between competitors over fuel surcharges which the ACCC alleged and Qantas admitted had the purpose and likely effect of fixing or maintaining a component of the price for air cargo services. The Federal Court in Sydney ordered Qantas to pay $20 million in pecuniary penalties for breaching the price fixing provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974. [2] [3] [4]

British Airways

The ACCC instituted proceedings against British Airways seeking penalties for alleged price fixing contraventions relating to fuel surcharges applied to international carriage of air cargo between 2002 and early 2006. [1] The Federal Court in Sydney ordered British Airways to pay $5 million in pecuniary penalties for breaching the price fixing provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The ACCC instituted proceedings alleging British Airways reached an understanding with Lufthansa Cargo in relation to the imposition of fuel surcharges on some of its international air cargo services between 2002 and early 2006. [5] [6]

Singapore Airlines Cargo

The ACCC alleged that Singapore Airlines Cargo, between 2001 and 2005, entered into arrangements or understandings with other international air cargo carriers that had the purpose or effect of fixing the price of a fuel surcharge and a security surcharge that was applied to air cargo carried by Singapore Airlines Cargo and other airlines including to and from Australia. [7] [8]

Air France

The ACCC instituted proceedings against Air France seeking penalties for alleged price fixing between early 2003 and 2006. The alleged contraventions relate to fuel surcharges applied to international carriage of air cargo during that period. [9] The Federal Court in Sydney ordered pecuniary penalties ($6 million in total with KLM) for breaching the price fixing provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The ACCC alleged the airline reached understandings with other international airlines in relation to the imposition of fuel surcharges applied to international carriage of air cargo during that period between early 2003 and 2006. Air France admitted to making and giving effect to illegal price fixing understandings with Lufthansa, repeatedly exchanging assurances with Lufthansa in the implementation of fuel surcharge increases for international carriage of air cargo across their global networks. [10] [11]

Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij (KLM)

The ACCC instituted proceedings against KLM seeking penalties for alleged price fixing between early 2003 and 2006. The alleged contraventions relate to fuel surcharges applied to international carriage of air cargo during that period. [12] The Federal Court in Sydney ordered pecuniary penalties ($6 million in total with Air France) for breaching the price fixing provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The ACCC alleged the airline reached understandings with other international airlines in relation to the imposition of fuel surcharges applied to international carriage of air cargo during that period between early 2003 and 2006. KLM admitted to making and giving effect to illegal price fixing understandings with Lufthansa, repeatedly exchanging assurances with Lufthansa in the implementation of fuel surcharge increases for international carriage of air cargo across their global networks. [10] [11]

Martinair Holland

The ACCC instituted proceedings against Martinair seeking penalties for alleged price fixing between early 2003 and 2006. The alleged contraventions relate to fuel surcharges applied to international carriage of air cargo during that period. [12] The Federal Court in Sydney ordered pecuniary penalties of $5 million for breaching the price fixing provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The ACCC alleged the airline reached understandings with other international airlines in relation to the imposition of fuel surcharges applied to international carriage of air cargo during that period between early 2003 and 2006. Martinair admitted that by no later than early 2003, it had arrived and gave effect to illegal price fixing understandings with KLM and Cargolux that they would have discussions and exchange and confirm information with each other in relation to the application of fuel surcharges on cargo carried internationally by air across their respective global networks. [10] [11]

Cargolux

The ACCC instituted proceedings against Cargolux seeking penalties for alleged price fixing between early 2003 and 2006. The alleged contraventions relate to fuel surcharges applied to international carriage of air cargo during that period. [12] The Federal Court in Sydney ordered pecuniary penalties of $5 million for breaching the price fixing provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The ACCC alleged the airline reached understandings with other international airlines in relation to the imposition of fuel surcharges applied to international carriage of air cargo during that period between early 2003 and 2006. Cargolux admitted to making and giving effect to illegal price fixing understandings with each of Lufthansa, Air France and KLM that each of them would impose a fuel surcharge on cargo carried internationally by air across their networks, (except where local conditions in a particular port or in a particular geographic area prevented the imposition, or full imposition, of the fuel surcharge). [10] [11]

Cathay Pacific

The ACCC instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Cathay Pacific. The ACCC alleged that between 2000 and 2006, Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd entered into over 70 arrangements or understandings with other international air cargo carriers that had the purpose or effect of fixing the price of a fuel surcharge, a security surcharge and rates that were applied to air cargo carried by Cathay Pacific and other airlines. The ACCC alleged that the arrangements or understandings were reached in countries including Singapore, Indonesia, Hong Kong, United Arab Emirates, India, Japan and Italy. The ACCC sort declarations, injunctive relief, pecuniary penalties, and costs. [13] [14]

Emirates

The ACCC instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Emirates. The ACCC alleged that between 2002 and 2006, Emirates entered into arrangements or understandings with other international air cargo carriers that had the purpose and effect of fixing the price of certain fuel surcharges, security surcharges and rates that were applied to air cargo carried by Emirates and other airlines. The ACCC alleged that the arrangements or understandings were reached in countries including Singapore, Indonesia, Hong Kong, United Arab Emirates and India. The ACCC sort declarations, injunctive relief, pecuniary penalties, and costs. [15] [16]

Garuda Indonesia

The ACCC instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Garuda Indonesia. The ACCC alleged that between 2001 and 2006, Garuda Indonesia entered into arrangements or understandings with other international air cargo carriers that had the purpose or effect of fixing the price of a fuel surcharge and a security surcharge that were applied to air cargo carried by PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd and other airlines. The ACCC alleged that the arrangements or understandings were reached in Indonesia and Hong Kong. The ACCC sort declarations, injunctive relief, pecuniary penalties, and costs. [17] [18]

Thai Airways

The ACCC alleged that between 2001 and 2006, Thai Airways entered into arrangements or understandings with other international air cargo carriers in specific countries that had the purpose or effect of fixing the price of fuel surcharges and security surcharges that were applied to air cargo carried by Thai Airways and other airlines. The ACCC alleged that the arrangements or understandings were reached in Singapore, Indonesia and Hong Kong – plus Thailand in the case of a security surcharge called a crisis surcharge – for surcharges applied to cargo originating in those countries. The ACCC sort declarations, injunctive relief, pecuniary penalties, and costs. [19] [20]

Korean Air

The ACCC instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Korean Air. The ACCC alleged that between 2001 and 2006, Korean Air entered into arrangements or understandings with other international air cargo carriers that had the purpose or effect of fixing the price of a fuel surcharge, a security surcharge and a customs fee that were applied to air cargo carried by Korean Air and other airlines. The ACCC alleged that the arrangements or understandings were reached in Korea, Indonesia and Hong Kong for surcharges applied to cargo originating in those countries and in Indonesia for a customs fee applied to cargo originating in that country. The ACCC sort declarations, injunctive relief, pecuniary penalties, and costs. [21] [22]

Malaysian Airlines

The ACCC instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Malaysian Airlines and its wholly owned cargo subsidiary MASkargo. The ACCC alleged that between 2001 and 2006, Malaysian Airlines and Malaysia Airlines Cargo entered into arrangements or understandings with other international air cargo carriers that had the purpose or effect of fixing the price of a fuel surcharge and a security surcharge that were applied to air cargo carried by them and other airlines. The ACCC alleged that arrangements or understandings were reached in Indonesia and Hong Kong for fuel surcharges applied to cargo originating in those countries. The ACCC also alleged arrangements or understandings were reached in Indonesia, Hong Kong and Singapore for a security surcharge applied to cargo originating in those countries. The ACCC sort declarations, injunctive relief, pecuniary penalties, and costs. [23] [24] [25]

Japan Airlines

The ACCC instituted proceedings in the Federal Court today against Japan Airlines. The ACCC alleged that between 2002 and 2006, Japan Airlines, Ltd. entered into arrangements or understandings with other international air cargo carriers that had the purpose or effect of fixing the price of a fuel surcharge and a security surcharge that were applied to air cargo carried by them and other airlines. The ACCC alleged that arrangements or understandings were reached in Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan for fuel surcharges applied to cargo originating in those countries. The ACCC also alleged arrangements or understandings were reached in Singapore and Hong Kong for a security surcharge applied to cargo originating in those countries. The ACCC sort declarations, injunctive relief, pecuniary penalties, and costs. [26] [27] The Federal Court in Melbourne ordered a $5.5 million penalty against Japan Airlines International Co Ltd (JAL) for breaching the price fixing provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974*. JAL admitted to making and giving effect to illegal price fixing understandings with other international airlines that each of them would impose a fuel surcharge and an insurance and security surcharge on cargo carried internationally by air across their networks. [28]

Air New Zealand

The ACCC instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Air New Zealand. The ACCC alleged that between 2002 and 2006, Air New Zealand entered into arrangements or understandings with other international air cargo carriers that had the purpose or effect of fixing the price of a fuel surcharge and a security surcharge that were applied to air cargo carried by them and other airlines. The ACCC alleged that arrangements or understandings were reached in Singapore Hong Kong and Japan for fuel surcharges applied to cargo originating in those countries. The ACCC also alleged arrangements or understandings were reached in Singapore and Hong Kong for a security surcharge applied to cargo originating in those countries. The ACCC sort declarations, injunctive relief, pecuniary penalties, and costs. [27] [29] [30]

Cosmetics skincare

In 2007, skincare cosmetics company Jurlique was fined AUD$3.4 million where the company entered into agreements with resellers where one of the terms included that the products were not to be sold for prices less than a price specified by Jurlique. [31]

Canada

Denmark

Forest products

EU convictions

Beer

On 18 April 2007 The European Commission imposed fines on Heineken €219.3m, Grolsch €31.65m and Bavaria €22.85m for operating a price fixing cartel in the Netherlands, totalling €273.7m. InBev, (formerly Interbrew), escaped without a penalty because it provided "decisive information" about the cartel which operated between 1996 and 1999 and others in the EU market. The brewers controlled 95% of the Dutch market, with Heineken claiming a half and the three others 15% each. [32]

Neelie Kroes said she was "very disappointed" that the collusion took place at the very highest (boardroom) level. She added, Heineken, Grolsch, Bavaria and InBev tried to cover their tracks by using code names and abbreviations for secret meetings to carve up the market for beer sold to supermarkets, hotels, restaurants and cafes. The price fixing extended to cheaper own-brand labels and rebates for bars. [32]

This is simply unacceptable: that major beer suppliers colluded to up prices and to carve up markets among themselves. [32]

—  EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes

In December 2001 Interbrew, Danone (former owner of Kronenbourg), and two other smaller brewers were fined €91m for operating a cartel in Belgium while four Luxembourg companies were fined €448,000 the same month. [32]

In 2004, Heineken and Kronenbourg, the two dominant brewers in France, were fined €2.5m – with the penalty reduced for co-operating. A similar inquiry into an alleged Italian cartel was closed without proceedings while the British and German beer markets were specifically excluded. [32]

Heavy electrical (switchgear)

In January 2007 Siemens was fined €396 million over its role in a collusion scandal. The European Commission handed out a massive €750 million in fines to Siemens, Alstom, Areva, Schneider Electric and Japanese firms Fuji Electric, Hitachi, Mitsubishi Electric, Toshiba and Japan AE Systems. Switzerland's ABB Group was a whistleblower and escaped without any fine from the commission. [33] Regulators found that the companies rigged bids for contracts and fixed prices in the market for gas-insulated switchgear – equipment is used to control the flow of energy in electricity grids. Siemens' fine was the biggest of the companies involved because it was a ringleader, the Commission said. About 30 business premises and private homes were searched as part of the investigation.

The cartel swapped information on offers from customers and operated a quota system for the division of work. Bids were rigged so that tenders went to whichever firm was due work under the quota system. "Code names were used for both companies and individuals. They relied on anonymous email addresses for communication and used encryption for sending messages," said the commission. [34] [35] "The commission has put an end to a cartel which has cheated public utility companies and consumers for more than 16 years," said EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes. [34]

France

Telecoms

In 2005, Orange France, SFR and Bouygues Telecom were found guilty and fined €534m for engaging in anti-competitive practices. [36]

Personal hygiene/health and beauty products

The Autorité de la concurrence handed out fines to Colgate-Palmolive, Henkel, Unilever, Procter & Gamble, Reckitt Benckiser, Sara Lee, SC Johnson, Bolton Solitaire], Groupe Vendôme SA, Gillette, L'Oreal, Beiersdorf and Vania totalling €948.9million in 2016 for price-fixing on personal hygiene products. [37]

Dessert foods

In 2019, the 6 companies behind the "Compote Cartel", a price-fixing scheme for children desserts products, were fined €58.3million for engaging in a sophisticated plan to artificially inflate the prices of their products via secret coordination. Andros, Lactalis, Materne, Charles & Alice, Valade and Conserves France were found guilty by the Autorité de la concurrence, while a seventh company, Coroos, was exonerated because its directors cooperated with the investigation, allowing the prosecutors to prove their case against the six others. [38]

Iceland

United Kingdom

Dairy products

In December 2007, Sainsbury's, Asda, Safeway, Dairy Crest, Robert Wiseman Dairies and The Cheese Company all admitted that they had secretly swapped information to make shoppers pay more for milk and cheese in a £270m price-fixing conspiracy between 2002 and 2003. The cartel agreed in principle with the Office of Fair Trading that they conspired against the interests of consumers. In their defense, the corporations stated they had been under pressure to help farmers hit by foot-and-mouth, however, lead OFT investigator Andrew groves said "I think it is reasonable to say we don't doubt the purpose initially was to pass money back to farmers but, in general, there is no evidence that farm gate price increased as a result of the initiative. We don't know what happened to the money." [39]

All the major UK store chains except Waitrose and Marks & Spencer were implicated in the OFT inquiry. It was accepted by Asda, Sainsbury and Safeway that stores increased the price of milk as a result of collusion. Dairy Crest and Wiseman allegedly acted as middle men, passing on sensitive information about prices to their supposed rivals. Tesco and Morrisons were accused of collusion too, but denied taking part. The allegations against Tesco involved cheese as well as milk and butter. [40]

The retailers could theoretically have faced fines of up to 10 per cent of their worldwide turnover, which in Tesco's case would have amounted to £4.3bn. In 2007 the Office of Fair Trading told Sainsbury's, Asda, Safeway, Dairy Crest, Wiseman and The Cheese Company they faced maximum fines of £116m. In August 2011, the OFT announce fines of £49.51m. [41] Sainsbury's told the London Stock Exchange that its fine was £26m. The fine for Safeway is thought to be between £8m and £10m; £9m for Dairy Crest and £6m for Robert Wiseman. Dairy processor Arla alerted the OFT to the infringement and received immunity from fines following full co-operation with authorities. Consumer advocate Which? Ltd complained that, despite overpaying £270m, consumers would not receive any refunds. [39]

Construction

In April 2008, The Office of Fair Trading named 112 companies that it says colluded to inflate the cost of a wide range of contracts worth billions of pounds, including tenders for schools, universities and hospitals. [42]

The list includes several publicly listed companies, including Balfour Beatty, Kier Group and Carillion, with 80 of the firms have already admitted participating in some form of bid-rigging, or have applied for leniency in return for assisting the OFT. The allegations centre around "cover pricing", in which firms secretly agreed the prices they would submit during a tender process. A firm that did not want to win the contract would submit a price that was much too high. In some cases, the eventual successful bidder would then reward them with a secret payment. This bid rigging often involved false invoices. The OFT declined to comment on the value of the fraud. [42]

Financial

In April 2003, The London office of ABN Amro was fined £900,000 for helping a US client, Oechsle International Advisers, to rig share prices. The fine was the FSA's fifth biggest, and is the largest involving market abuse on the London Stock Exchange. [43]

ABN's then joint head of the UK equity trading desk, Michael Ackers, has been fined £70,000 for "market misconduct." The FSA decided that traders in ABN Amro Equities (UK), known as AAE, "accepted improper instructions whose apparent purpose was to push the closing market price of certain shares to a higher level than would otherwise have been the case". This happened on three separate occasions between April and October 1998 in respect of shares in Carlton Communications, British Biotech, Volkswagen and Metro. Angelo Iannone, the head of ABN's international sales trading desk in New York, had had a long-standing relationship with Oechsle and one of its fund managers, Andrew Parlin. They agreed to increase the price of the shares in question at the end of certain days' trading, to make the prices look better in clients' portfolios. [43]

Trading in stocks simply to move the market price is a serious abuse: it distorts market forces and undermines investors' confidence in the integrity of the prices quoted on exchanges...These were not isolated events. The repeated nature of the breaches demonstrates the absence of a robust compliance environment on the firm's trading floor. We view with particular seriousness misconduct that occurs in the context of a firm's inadequate investment in compliance procedures, policies and training. Investors need to be confident that they are dealing in clean and orderly markets. [44]

— Carol Sergeant, Managing Director of the FSA

United States

Agribusiness

Air travel

In August 2007 British Airways (BA) was fined £121.5 million [45] for price-fixing. The fine was imposed by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) after BA admitted to the price-fixing of fuel surcharges on long haul flights. The allegation first came to light in 2006 when Virgin Atlantic reported the events to the authorities after it found staff members from BA and Virgin Atlantic were colluding. Virgin Atlantic have since been granted immunity by both the OFT and the United States Department of Justice who have been investigating the allegations since June 2006. The United States Department of Justice later announced that it would fine British Airways $300 million for price fixing.

The allegations are thought to be linked to the resignation of commercial director Martin George and communications chief Iain Burns. Although BA said fuel surcharges were "a legitimate way of recovering costs", in May 2007 it put aside £350 million for legal fees and fines.

Alcoholic beverages

Computer components

Heavy electrical equipment

A federal district court in February 1961 fined 29 electrical manufacturing companies and 45 individuals a total of $1,924,500 for violating the antitrust laws by fixing prices and rigging bids on heavy electrical equipment, some of which was sold to the Government. [46] (See also: Allis-Chalmers § 1960s and 1970s .)

Metals

Music publishing

See also

Related Research Articles

Qantas Airways Limited, or simply Qantas, is the flag carrier of Australia, and the largest airline by fleet size, international flights, and international destinations in Australia and Oceania. A founding member of the Oneworld airline alliance, it is the only airline in the world that flies to all seven continents, with it operating flights to Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Europe, North America and South America from its hubs in Sydney, Perth, Melbourne and Brisbane. It also flies to over 60 domestic destinations across Australia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Air Transport Association</span> International trade association for airlines

The International Air Transport Association is a trade association of the world's airlines founded in 1945. IATA has been described as a cartel since, in addition to setting technical standards for airlines, IATA also organized tariff conferences that served as a forum for price fixing.

Price fixing is an anticompetitive agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand.

Virgin Atlantic, a trading name of Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited and Virgin Atlantic International Limited, is a British airline with its head office in Crawley, West Sussex, England. The airline was established in 1984 as British Atlantic Airways, and was originally planned by its co-founders Randolph Fields and Alan Hellary to fly between London and the Falkland Islands. Soon after changing the name to Virgin Atlantic Airways, Fields sold his shares in the company to Richard Branson in return for unlimited free travel. The maiden flight from London–Gatwick to Newark took place on 22 June 1984.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cargolux</span> Flag carrier of Luxembourg

Cargolux, legally Cargolux Airlines International S.A., is the flag carrier cargo airline of Luxembourg with its headquarters and hub at Luxembourg Airport. With a global network, it is among the largest scheduled all-cargo airlines in the world. Charter flights and third party maintenance are also operated. It has 85 offices in over 50 countries as of 2018, and operates a global trucking network to more than 250 destinations.

Collusion is a deceitful agreement or secret cooperation between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading or defrauding others of their legal right. Collusion is not always considered illegal. It can be used to attain objectives forbidden by law; for example, by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities. It can involve "unions, wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties". In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">BlueScope</span> Australian steel producer

BlueScope Steel Limited is an Australian flat product steel producer that was spun-off from BHP Billiton in 2002.

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.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is the chief competition regulator of the Government of Australia, located within the Department of the Treasury. It was established in 1995 with the amalgamation of the Australian Trade Practices Commission and the Prices Surveillance Authority to administer the Trade Practices Act 1974, which was renamed the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 on 1 January 2011. The ACCC's mandate is to protect consumer rights and business rights and obligations, to perform industry regulation and price monitoring, and to prevent illegal anti-competitive behaviour.

Singapore Airlines Cargo is the unit within Singapore Airlines (SIA) responsible for air cargo operations. It was incorporated in 1988. SIA Cargo manages the cargo operations of SIA's fleet of freight- and passenger aircraft. Its main office is on the fifth floor of the SATS Airfreight Terminal 5 at Singapore Changi Airport.

Resale price maintenance (RPM) or, occasionally, retail price maintenance is the practice whereby a manufacturer and its distributors agree that the distributors will sell the manufacturer's product at certain prices, at or above a price floor or at or below a price ceiling. If a reseller refuses to maintain prices, either openly or covertly, the manufacturer may stop doing business with it. Resale price maintenance is illegal in many jurisdictions.

<i>Competition and Consumer Act 2010</i> Act of the Parliament of Australia

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard Pratt (businessman)</span> Australian businessman (1934–2009)

Richard J. Pratt was an Australian businessman, chairman of the privately owned company Visy Industries, and a leading figure of Melbourne society. In the year before his death, Pratt was Australia's fourth-richest person, with a personal fortune valued at A$5.48 billion.

Qantas Freight is a subsidiary company of Australia's largest airline Qantas, responsible for the air cargo operations of the Qantas group. It is the owner of freight airline Express Freighters Australia, freight forwarder Qantas Courier and trucking company Jets Transport Express. Qantas Freight was also a partner in two joint ventures with Australia Post: Australian airExpress, specialising in door-to-door package delivery, and StarTrack, a road freight company. In November 2012 Qantas Freight fully acquired Australia air Express and divested its shareholding in Star Track to Australia Post. Qantas Freight was also the owner of Asian-based freight forwarder DPEXWorldwide until that company was acquired by its competitor Toll Holdings in 2010.

The Commerce Commission is a New Zealand government agency with responsibility for enforcing legislation that relates to competition in the country's markets, fair trading and consumer credit contracts, and regulatory responsibility for areas such as electricity and gas, telecommunications, dairy products and airports. It is an independent Crown entity established under the Commerce Act 1986. Although responsible to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media, the Commission is run independently from the government, and is intended to be an impartial promotor and enforcer of the law.

<i>Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd</i> 2007 High Court of Australia decision

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd, (Baxter) was a decision of the High Court of Australia, which ruled on 29 August 2007 that Baxter Healthcare Proprietary Limited, a tenderer for various government contracts, was bound by the Trade Practices Act 1974 in its trade and commerce in tendering for government contracts. More generally, the case concerned the principles of derivative governmental immunity: whether the immunity of a government from a statute extends to third parties that conduct business with the government.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) is the chief national competition regulator in India. It is a statutory body within the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and is responsible for enforcing the Competition Act, 2002 to promote competition and prevent activities that have an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India. The CCI looks into cases and investigates them if the same has a negative impact on competition.

In online retail, drip pricing is a sales technique where a headline price is advertised at the beginning of the purchase process, followed by the incremental disclosure of additional fees, taxes or charges. The objective of drip pricing is to gain a consumer's interest in a misleadingly low headline price without the true final price being disclosed until the consumer has invested time and effort in the purchase process and made a decision to purchase.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">A2B Australia</span> Australian public company

A2B Australia is an Australian based taxi operator.

<i>ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd</i>

ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd is a 2010 decision of the Federal Court of Australia brought by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) against Cabcharge. In June 2009, the ACCC began proceedings in the Federal Court against Cabcharge alleging that it had breached section 46 of the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act (TPA) by misusing its market power and entering into an agreement to substantially lessen competition. The action alleged predatory pricing by Cabcharge and centred on Cabcharge's conduct in refusing to deal with competing suppliers to allow Cabcharge payments to be processed through EFTPOS terminals provided by rival companies and supplying taxi meters and fare updates at below actual cost or at no cost.

References

  1. 1 2 ACCC launches its first cases in alleged air freight cartel, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 28 October 2008. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  2. ↑ Court orders Qantas to pay $20 million for price fixing, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 11 December 2008. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  3. ↑ Qantas cops fine for price fixing, 11 December 2008. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  4. ↑ Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Qantas Airways Limited [2008] FCA 1976 , Federal Court (Australia).
  5. ↑ Court orders British Airways PLC to pay $5 million for price fixing, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 11 December 2008. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  6. ↑ Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v British Airways PLC [2008] FCA 1977 , Federal Court (Australia).
  7. ↑ ACCC institutes proceedings against Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd for alleged price-fixing, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 22 December 2008. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  8. ↑ Singapore Airlines to defend ACCC price fixing claim, ABC News, 22 December 2008. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  9. ↑ ACCC institutes proceedings against more airlines in alleged air freight cartel, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 10 February 2009. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  10. 1 2 3 4 Court orders airlines to pay a total of $16 million in penalties for price fixing, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 16 February 2009. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  11. 1 2 3 4 Federal Court fines Air France, KLM, Martinari and Cargolux $16 million for price-fixing cartel, The Australian, 16 February 2009. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  12. 1 2 3 ACCC institutes proceedings against more airlines in alleged air freight cartel, 10 February 2009. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  13. ↑ ACCC institutes proceedings against Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd for alleged price-fixing of air freight, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 30 April 2009. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  14. ↑ ACCC takes legal action against Cathay Pacific, Aircargo Asia Pacific, 30 April 2009. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  15. ↑ ACCC takes action against Emirates for alleged air freight price fixing, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 18 August 2009. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  16. ↑ Emirates accused of freight price-fixing, Sydney Morning Herald, 18 August 2009. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  17. ↑ ACCC institutes proceedings against PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd for alleged price fixing of air freight, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 2 September 2009. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  18. ↑ "ACCC targets Garuda – Aviation Business" . Retrieved 29 October 2016.
  19. ↑ ACCC institutes proceedings against Thai Airways for alleged price fixing of air freight, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 28 October 2009. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  20. ↑ Thai Airways falls foul of ACCC, Eye For Transport, 29 October 2009 Archived 28 February 2011 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved 18 May 2011
  21. ↑ ACCC institutes proceedings against Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 5 March 2010. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  22. ↑ Australia targets Korean, Air cargo Net, 12 March 2010 Archived 7 July 2012 at archive.today . Retrieved 18 May 2011
  23. ↑ ACCC institutes proceedings against Malaysian airline companies for alleged price fixing of air freight, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 13 April 2010. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  24. ↑ MAS latest target for price-fixing charges, Air Cargo, 20 April 2010 Archived 11 August 2011 at the Wayback Machine ]. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  25. ↑ Malaysia Airlines in court on "cartel" allegations, Air Cargo World, 13 April 2010 Archived 26 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved 18 May 2011
  26. ↑ ACCC institutes proceedings against Japan Airlines International Co., Ltd. for alleged price fixing of air freight, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 17 May 2010. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  27. 1 2 Price fixing charge for Air NZ and JAL, ACCC says, Herald Sun, 17 May 2010. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  28. ↑ Japan Airlines penalised $5.5 million for price fixing, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 11 April 2010. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  29. ↑ ACCC institutes proceedings against Air New Zealand Ltd for alleged price fixing of air freight, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, 17 May 2010. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  30. ↑ Air New Zealand caught fixing prices by ACCC, Business Dynamics, 17 May 2010. Retrieved 18 May 2011
  31. ↑ Commission, Australian Competition and Consumer (23 February 2013). "Highest ever penalty for resale price maintenance against skincare, cosmetics company Jurlique: $3.4 million" . Retrieved 29 October 2016.
  32. 1 2 3 4 5 Gow, David (18 April 2007). "Heineken and Grolsch fined for price-fixing". The Guardian . London. Retrieved 1 August 2007.
  33. ↑ "Vote call by Siemens shareholders". BBC. 25 January 2007. Retrieved 1 August 2007.
  34. 1 2 "Siemens hit with €396 million price fixing fine" . Retrieved 1 August 2007.
  35. ↑ "The General Court reduces the fines of certain members of the gas insulated switchgear cartel" (PDF) (Press release). Luxembourg: General Court of the European Union. 3 March 2011. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
  36. ↑ "French Competition Council imposes new record fine for mobile phone operators". Bird & Bird. 13 April 2006.
  37. ↑ "Huge price-fixing fine is upheld". The Connexion. 28 October 2016. Archived from the original on 9 February 2017.
  38. ↑ "Le «cartel des compotes» condamné à 58,3 millions d'euros d'amendes". 18 December 2019.
  39. 1 2 "Milked! Supermarkets admit secret price-fixing". Archived from the original on 6 July 2008. Retrieved 29 October 2016.
  40. ↑ Walsh, Fiona; editor, business (7 December 2007). "OFT hands out £116m in fines for milk price fixing". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 October 2016.{{cite web}}: |last2= has generic name (help)
  41. ↑ "Supermarkets and dairy producers fined after OFT price-fixing investigation". Lexology. 8 September 2011. Retrieved 20 August 2024.
  42. 1 2 OFT issues statement of objections against 112 construction companies Archived 20 April 2008 at the Wayback Machine
  43. 1 2 "US". Independent.co.uk . Archived from the original on 30 June 2010. Retrieved 29 October 2016.
  44. ↑ 5HS, The Financial Services Authority, 25 The North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14. "FSA fines ABN Amro Equities 900,000 for market misconduct" . Retrieved 29 October 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  45. ↑ "BA gets £121.5m price-fixing fine". BBC News. 8 January 2007.
  46. ↑ CQ almanac Electrical Price Fixing Stirs Inquiry
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.