5. Article 102

This chapter discusses the main features of Article 102 of the Treaty of Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which is concerned with the abusive conduct of dominant firms. It begins by discussing the meaning of ‘undertaking’ and ‘effect on trade between Member States’ in the context of Article 102. It then considers what is meant by a dominant position and looks at the requirement that any dominant position must be held in a substantial part of the internal market. Thereafter it discusses some general considerations relevant to the concept of abuse of dominance, followed by an explanation of what is meant by ‘exploitative’, ‘exclusionary’ and ‘single market’ abuses. It then discusses possible defences to allegations of abuse, and concludes by considering the consequences of infringing Article 102.

17. Abuse of dominance (1): non-pricing practices

This chapter considers abusive non-pricing practices under Article 102 TFEU and the Chapter II prohibition in the Competition Act 1998. It deals in turn with exclusive dealing agreements; tying; refusals to supply; abusive non-pricing practices that are harmful to the single market; and miscellaneous other non-pricing practices which might infringe Article 102 or the Chapter II prohibition. Reference is made to the case-law of the Court of Justice and the Commission’s Guidance on the Commission’s Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article [102 TFEU] to Abusive Exclusionary Conduct by Dominant Undertakings

18. Abuse of dominance (2): pricing practices

This chapter considers abusive pricing practices under Article 102 TFEU and the Chapter II prohibition in the Competition Act 1998. It first discusses various cost concepts used in determining whether a price is abusive. It then deals in turn with excessive pricing; conditional rebates; bundling; predatory pricing; margin squeeze; price discrimination; and practices that are harmful to the single market. This taxonomy is over-schematic, in that the categories overlap with one another: for example price discrimination may be both exploitative and exclusionary, and an excessively high price may in reality be a way of preventing parallel imports or of excluding a competitor from the market; nevertheless this division may provide helpful insights into the way in which the law is applied in practice. In each section the application of Article 102 by the European Commission and by the EU Courts will be considered first, followed by cases in the UK. Reference will be made where appropriate to the Commission’s Guidance on the Commission’s Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article [102 TFEU] to Abusive Exclusionary Conduct by Dominant Undertakings.

Exclusionary Abuses

Chapter 4 deals with exclusionary abuses under the Competition Act 1998, covering both public and private enforcement cases. The analysis concerns the approach to dominance as well as tests for abuse, focusing on retroactive rebates and bundled discounts, exclusion in multi-market settings, exclusivity, most favoured nation and equivalent clauses, discrimination, and exclusionary abuses in the pharmaceutical sector. This chapter argues that, in its second decade, modern UK competition law continued a trend that was already clear in the first decade: the prohibition of abuse of dominance is applied in a more economically robust and commercially reasonable way than it is by the EU institutions - the Commission and the EU courts - and in certain other Member States. The chapter notes that the third decade of the Competition Act 1998 will see the UK develop its competition policy free from the constraints of EU law and may allow for some divergence in the approach to exclusionary abuses in the future.

Suitability of the Remedy of Divestiture in Non-Merger Cases: A South African Perspective

This article considers the suitability of the remedy of divestiture in non-merger cases, particularly in markets where high concentration levels may embolden incumbents to engage in abusive conduct. The article observes that the prevailing practice in competition-law enforcement is that, while divestiture is an acceptable remedy in merger cases, it is generally eschewed in non-merger cases. The article argues that economic conditions in South Africa provide justification for the use of the divestiture remedy in non-merger cases, particularly in cases of abuse of dominance in concentrated markets. The article observes that there is sufficient legal authority and history supporting the use of the remedy in non-merger cases.

IPR Regime and Antitrust Implications of Mergers and Acquisitions: With a Focus on Software and Pharmaceutical Sector

This article seeks to analyze the trends and patterns of mergers and acquisitions (M&As) during the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights regime and addresses the antitrust issues related to innovation and competition in the framework of competition policy. Empirical evidence supports the view that enhancing size in terms of corporate control of equity, product market share, and innovation market share could be the motivations for the M&A phenomenon in the sector such as software and pharmaceuticals. These sectors were able to extract relatively more profit margin as compared to the manufacturing sector. This article further observes anticompetitive practices in terms of pricing and abuse of dominance in these two industries. The study argues for introducing regulatory mechanisms in the competition policy which could address the antitrust implications of M&As that are engaged in by knowledge-based firms and start-ups. This is because such acquisitions can reduce the incentives to innovate or change the innovative and competitive dynamics in the relevant market.