Private enforcement

Author Definition

Definition

Many countries authorize private suits challenging conduct claimed to violate their competition laws. In some jurisdictions such suits are limited to cases that “follow-on” a successful government suit, but “stand alone” suits are permitted in the U.S., many EU Member States, and the UK. Suits generally may be instituted by competitors, suppliers, and customers. Such suits usually seek damages compensating plaintiffs for injury caused by the anticompetitive conduct and/or injunctive relief to force its discontinuance. The U.S. is unique in requiring treble damages to be awarded to successful plaintiffs. U.S. federal antitrust law generally disallows suits by indirect purchasers claiming damages passed on to them, but many other jurisdictions allow such suits.

Commentary

Private enforcement of competition laws is permitted in many countries. While some jurisdictions limit private enforcement to cases that ‘follow-on” from a successful government enforcement action, “stand-alone” private suits also are permitted in the United States (US), European Union (EU), and the United Kingdom (UK). As summarized below, the policies of all three jurisdictions provide for private enforcement in order to ensure that those injured by antitrust violations are fully compensated, but private enforcement is also intended to deter antitrust violations.

Jury trials are authorized for antitrust private damages suits in the US but are not authorized in the EU or UK. There is a four-year statute of limitations in the U.S., between one and five years in the EU (depending on the Member State), and six years in the UK for claims in the English High Court. The period is tolled in the US and certain EU Member States while governmental proceedings are pending and for a short time period thereafter.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) is a specialized competition court in the UK that hears both stand-alone and follow-on damage claims. There is a “fast track” procedure available before the CAT pursuant to which hearings are to be held within six months for small or medium firms if the hearing can be concluded within three days and will not involve complex or novel issues. Different limitation periods also apply to CAT claims.

In the US, liability findings against a defendant in a federal government antitrust case are admissible in a follow-on private antitrust suit as prima facie evidence of a violation. In the EU on the other hand, the finding of a violation by the European Commission is binding in a follow-on private action in the national court of Member States that have adopted the 2014 EU Damages Directive. Post-Brexit, European Commission decisions are not binding in the UK, but infringement decisions issued by the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority remain binding on defendants in follow-on private suits.

Most jurisdictions, including the UK and EU Member States, provide for single damages. The U.S. is the only major jurisdiction providing a mandatory treble damage remedy to private enforcers of the Sherman Act. Additionally, a successful private plaintiff in the U.S. recovers its attorneys’ fees from the defendant. In the UK the same rule applies although only part of the successful plaintiff’s fees normally is recovered. Most EU Member States only allow successful parties to recover a relatively small portion of their cost, but mandatory interest is assessed from the inception of the wrongdoing in the UK and some EU Member States.

In the US, only direct customers generally have standing to sue cartel members or monopolists engaged in abusive conduct for overcharges under the Sherman Act. The impact of this judicially established federal rule has been somewhat muted, however, by the large number of states that permit indirect purchasers to recover under their state antitrust laws, which are not preempted by the federal antitrust laws. In UK and EU Member States that have adopted the EU Damages Directive, indirect customers of wrongdoers can bring claims but must prove that losses were “passed on” to them by direct purchasers. In 2019 the European Commission issued non-binding guidelines to national courts on how to estimate the overcharge that that was passed-on to indirect purchasers.

In the US, the determination whether a plaintiff may proceed with an antitrust claim is based on an evaluation of the following factors: (1) the causal connection between the alleged violation and the harm to the plaintiff; (2) the nature of the injury, including whether the plaintiff is a consumer or competitor in the relevant market; (3) the directness of the injury, and whether the damage claim is too speculative; (4) the potential for duplicative damages or complex damages apportionment issues; and (5) the existence of more efficient enforcers. In the UK and most EU Member States there is a proximate cause standard requiring a plaintiff to establish that its injury was caused in whole or substantial part by the alleged violation of the competition laws.

Defendants in cartel suits in all three jurisdictions are subject to joint and several liability. However, in the US there is no right to contribution from co-defendants while in the UK and many EU Member States, infringing companies do have contribution claims against each other. However, in those EU Member States where the EU Damages is followed, small and medium sized companies, as well as companies that have been granted amnesty, are liable only to their own (direct or indirect) customers.

In cartel cases in all three jurisdictions, the amount of damages is based on the amount of overcharge proven by the plaintiff, and in cases involving exclusionary abuses by dominant companies, damages are based on the profit the plaintiff can prove it would have made in a competitive market.

Calculation of damages to injured antitrust plaintiffs in all three jurisdictions need not be precise and can be determined on reasonable estimates based on relevant data. However, damages cannot be calculated by speculation or guesswork. Although specific rules on quantification vary among EU Member States, the European Commission has issued Practical Guides for Quantifying Harm in Actions for Damages.

Private damages claims are regularly filed in all three jurisdictions challenging cartels, but there are fewer private abuse of dominance cases. This is not surprising for three reasons. First, dominance cases are less frequently instituted by government enforcers, particularly in the U.S. Second, such cases require (more) economic analysis, including defining the relevant market, and assessing whether the alleged wrongdoer is dominant in that market. Third, the damage quantification in dominance cases is less straightforward than in cartel cases, where the basic issue is whether the alleged cartel members entered into the unlawful agreement at issue.

Claims for injunctive relief in antitrust suits to remedy actual or threatened harm are permitted in the US and UK, either with or without damage claims.

Case references

Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (Nov. 26, 2014)

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1970)

Bibliography

Herbert Hovenkamp, Federal Antitrust Policy, The Law of Competition and Its Practice, Ch. 16 (West Academic Publishing, 6th Ed. 2020).

Section of Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law Developments, Ch. 9 (ABA Book Publishing, 8th Ed. 2017).

Pier Luigi Parcu, Georgio Monti & Marco Botta (Editors), Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2018).

Ros Kellaway, Rhodri Thompson & Christopher Brown (Editors), UK Competition Law: The New Framework, Ch. 8 (Oxford Univ. Press 2016).

Institution Definition

Public enforcement can be defined as the enforcement of antitrust laws by a government, for example by the competition authority or a prosecutor, to detect and sanction violators of competition rules. By contrast, private enforcement can generally be defined as litigation initiated by an individual, a legal entity, an organisation or a public entity (such as local government and procurement agency in the bid-rigging case) to have a court establish an antitrust infringement and order the recovery of the damages suffered or impose injunctive reliefs. Private enforcement can be triggered by a stand-alone action or by an action which follows on a public enforcement decision. In most jurisdictions, private enforcement is mostly represented by follow-on private actions. © OECD

See also Damages and Collective redress (class action)

Case Comments

Paul Gilbert, Paul Stuart, Anna Battersby, Sabrina Stewart The UK Competition Authority issues an infringement decision finding that a football club and a sports equipment retailer colluded to restrict competition in the sales of sports-branded clothing and replica kit (Leicester City FC / JD Sports)

CMA Fines Leicester City FC for Anticompetitive Pricing Practices* On 31 July 2023, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) issued an infringement decision finding that Leicester City Football Club and JD Sports had colluded to restrict competition in the sales of Leicester City-branded (...)

Charles Balmain, Marc Israel, Raif Hassan, Robert Wheal, William Obree, Isabella Conceicao Silva The UK Supreme Court rules that many litigation funding agreements are unenforceable (Trucks Cartel)

In a heavy blow to the litigation funding industry, the UK Supreme Court has held that many litigation funding agreements are damages-based agreements and must comply with the relevant regulatory regime. Funders will be urgently reviewing their funding agreements amid widespread concern that (...)

James Brady-Banzet, Paul Stuart, Lanto Sheridan, Julia Kelsoe The UK Supreme Court rules that many litigation funding agreements are unlawful and unenforceable in relation to a collective damages claim against a cartel of truck manufacturers (Trucks Cartel)

Supreme Court Rules Most Litigation Funding Agreements are Unlawful* Over the past two decades, litigation funding in the UK has become increasingly important and more commonly used. Once deemed contrary to public policy and unlawful, litigation funding is now regarded as playing a (...)

Jonathan Swil, James Webber, Matthew Readings, Matther Skinner, Alex Bevan, Chris Collins The UK Supreme Court rules that litigation funding agreements are damage-based agreements and are likely unenforceable (Trucks Cartel)

In a decision of major importance for litigation in the UK, the UK Supreme Court has held that litigation funding agreements (“LFAs”) under which a litigation funder receives a percentage of any damages recovered by the claimant are damages-based agreements (“DBAs”) for the purposes of s58AA (...)

Anthony Maton, David Lawne, Chrysanthi Bampali, Dexter Stevens, Rachael Baillie The UK Court of Appeal overturns the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s judgment and holds that collective action against six banking groups over alleged foreign exchange manipulation can proceed as ‘opt-out’ collective proceedings (Evans / O’Higgins)

London, 25 July 2023 – The Court of Appeal ruled today that FX Claim UK, the collective action brought by Phillip Evans against six banking groups over alleged foreign exchange manipulation, can proceed as ‘opt out’ collective proceedings. This ruling overturns the Competition Appeal (...)

Jeremy Robinson, Temidayo Alade The UK Court of Appeal rules on the carriage of competition disputes at the CAT, affirming the CAT’s specialist role in competition class actions (Evans / O’Higgins)

Introduction The UK Court of Appeal recently ruled on a carriage dispute in competition collective proceedings at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT or Tribunal). The CAT had ruled on 31 March 2022 in Evans v Barclays PLC & Ors / O’Higgins which, amongst other issues on appeal, raised (...)

Martin Seegers, Carsten Krüger The German Regional Court of Dortmund seeks clarity from the EU Court of Justice regarding the enforcement of cartel damage claims through the assignment model (ASG)

Effective enforcement of cartel damage claims through the assignment model: The preliminary ruling procedure before the CJEU in Case C-253/23 (ASG) – A Comment* The Regional Court of Dortmund has asked the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling on the access (...)

Philip Marsden UK Competition law & Digital markets: An overview of national case law

What to say in an introduction to such a timely and comprehensive set of Concurrences updates of competition law developments in the UK - other than suggest very strongly, that you read them all. As with most jurisdictions, the enforcement agency - the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) - is the main actor. However, this past year has really been one of strong collaboration with concurrent regulations and government departments. The greatest cooperation with concurrent regulators is truly in the digital space, including a new Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum, bringing in telecoms, financial services and privacy concerns into a collaborative space. This foundation of cooperation among agencies bodes well for the bedding down and implementation of the eventual new ex ante pro-competitive regulation in the UK.

US Federal Trade Commission The US FTC files an amicus brief arguing that a defendant against abusive exclusive dealing and bundling charges in a private enforcement case has misstated the legal standards of the behaviours (Medtronic / Applied Medical)

FTC Files Amicus Brief to Clarify Antitrust Standards Involving Exclusive-Dealing and Bundling Arrangements* The Federal Trade Commission filed a friend-of-the-court (amicus) brief in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, clarifying legal standards that apply in (...)

Friederike Finkelnburg, Thilo Reimers, Benjamin Linke, Udo Woll Competition law in the railway sector: An overview of EU and national case law

The thrive for climate-neutral and environmentally friendly mobility as expressed in the 2019 European Green Deal has placed the rail sector at the forefront of recent EU policy objectives. One such objective is to increase the share of rail transport in the EU, which is essential to achieve the EU’s climate goals. Rail transport is the most sustainable means of transport as it represents only 0,4 of the EU’s total CO2 emissions (2022 EU statistical pocketbook data), despite having a share of 5,4% of passenger transport and 17% of freight transport across Europe. However, this shift to rail has yet to be achieved. Despite considerable efforts towards market liberalization and technical harmonization undertaken by fundamental regulatory reforms through the four railway packages adopted in 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2016, a lot remains to be done. A second EU policy objective is to ensure a resilient and interconnected cross-border transport system, notably in times of crisis, as shown during the Covid-19 pandemic. As early as March 2020, EU member states agreed on the need to have a coordinated approach to ensure economic continuity and connectivity by promoting public transport as an essential service and public good. This focused action helped the rail sector to cope with the adverse economic effects of the pandemic. Finally, European legislation and policy initiatives deal with the digital and data-driven market for mobility services, which is still young, dynamic and developing. To this end, the 2021 Revised Rail Passengers Rights Regulation to be implemented by Member States by June 2023 aims at improving data sharing. In addition, the European Commission has launched the Multimodal Digital Mobility Services Initiative, which is directed at rail ticketing to foster comprehensive route planning and ticketing offered by railway undertakings and third-party ticket vendors.

Articles

Wouter Wils Should the EU Competition Damages Directive be revised to grant companies that have received immunity from fines under the competition authorities’ leniency programmes also immunity from damages?

Following various proposals in the academic literature, and in the light of the observed decrease in the number of leniency applications received by European competition authorities in the period 2015–2020, the German Monopolies Commission (Monopolkommission) proposed in 2022 to amend the (...)

Rupprecht Podszun Towards a manageable concept of abuse of dominance in the EU

What is an abuse of dominance in European competition law? Let’s take a 2022 example from a first instance court in Frankfurt, Germany (case 2-03 O 58/22). It ruled on the application of an online seller of individualised number plates for cars to get an injunction against Google. Google had (...)

Muriel Chagny Legislating for (two times) more attractiveness?

On the face of it, the question seems to call for a resolutely negative response in a country where legislative inflation is frequently and rightly denounced, and where the emblematic illustration of French law on restrictive practices grappling with ephemeral laws leads us to call, more than (...)

Muriel Chagny Droit de la concurrence et droit commun des obligations

This section selects books on themes related to competition laws and economics. This compilation does not attempt to be exhaustive but rather a survey of themes important in the area. The survey usually covers publication over the last three months after publication of the latest issue of (...)

Wouter Wils Principles of European Antitrust Enforcement

This section selects books on themes related to competition laws and economics. This compilation does not attempt to be exhaustive but rather a survey of themes important in the area. The survey usually covers publication over the last three months after publication of the latest issue of (...)

Peter Willis Introduction to EU Competition Law

This section selects books on themes related to competition laws and economics. This compilation does not attempt to be exhaustive but rather a survey of themes important in the area. The survey usually covers publication over the last three months after publication of the latest issue of (...)

Philip Marsden Handbook of Research in Trans-Atlantic Antitrust

This section selects books on themes related to competition laws and economics. This compilation does not attempt to be exhaustive but rather a survey of themes important in the area. The survey usually covers publication over the last three months after publication of the latest issue of (...)

Jürgen Basedow Private Enforcement of EC Competition Law

This section selects books on themes related to competition laws and economics. This compilation does not attempt to be exhaustive but rather a survey of themes important in the area. The survey usually covers publication over the last three months after publication of the latest issue of (...)

Events

Ben Tidswell, Aurora Luoma, Bill Batchelor, Matthew Martino, Elizabeth Robertson, Boris Bershteyn A dinner and discussion with Ben Tidswell (Competition Appeal Tribunal)

Dinner organised by Concurrences in partnership with Skadden with keynote speaker Ben Tidswell (Chairman, UK Competition Appeal Tribunal), Bill Batchelor (Partner, Skadden), Aurora Luoma (Partner, Skadden), Boris Bershteyn (Partner, Skadden), Matthew Martino (Partner, Skadden) and Elizabeth Robertson (Partner, Skadden).

Sophie Depelley, Sylvaine Poillot-Peruzzetto, Nathalie Dostert, Olivier Fréget, Gildas de Muizon, Rafael P. Amaro Classification of damages due to anticompetitive practices

Webinar organised by Concurrences, in partnership with Deloitte, Fréget Glaser & Associés and Orrick, with Sophie Depelley (Conseillère à la chambre concurrence et distribution (5/4), Cour d’appel de Paris), Nathalie Dostert (Présidente de la chambre de droit de la concurrence et Vice-présidente honoraire, Tribunal de commerce de Paris), Sylvaine Poillot-Peruzzetto (Conseillère à la chambre commerciale, financière et économique, Cour de cassation), Olivier Fréget (Partner, Fréget Glaser & Associés), Gildas De Muizon (Partner - Economic Advisory, Deloitte) et Rafael Amaro (Professor, Université de Caen Normandie).

Nathalie Dostert, Rafael P. Amaro, Jacqueline Riffault-Silk, Roberto Cisotta, Vivien Terrien, Caterina Fratea, Gabriella Muscolo, Simon Holmes, Niklas Brueggemann, Patrick Hubert, Irène Luc, Laurent Flochel, Jan Passer, Charles Demoulin, Laure Schulz, Mantas Stanevičius, Frederic Palomino, Mercedes Pedraz Calvo, Marion Provost Private Enforcement in the EU: 2022 State of play

7th Private Enforcement in the EU Conference organised by Concurrences, in partnership with Compass Lexecon, Dechert, Deminor, Franzosi Del Negro Setti, Orrick, RBB Economics.

Douglas H. Ginsburg, Eleanor M. Fox, Roxann E. Henry, Antonio Bavasso, Gönenç Gürkaynak One Hour with Judge Ginsburg

Webinar organised by Concurrences, in partnership with ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law, with Antonio Bavasso (Partner, Simpson Thacher | Visiting Professor, University College London), Douglas H. Ginsburg (Senior Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | Professor of Law, GMU Antonin Scalia Law School), Gönenç Gürkaynak (Partner, ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law), Roxann E. Henry (Lawyer and Former Chair, Antitrust Section of the American Bar Association) and Eleanor M. Fox (Professor of Law, NYU School of Law).

Mélanie Thill-Tayara, Hugues Parmentier, David Bosco, Mercedes Pedraz Calvo, Marina Tavassi Private Enforcement #4 Imputability, interest in bringing an action and causal link

4th Webinar of the 6th « Private Enforcement Conference » organised by Concurrences, in partnership with Dechert, with David Bosco (Professor, Aix-Marseille Université), Hugues Parmentier (Policy officer - ECN & private enforcement, DG COMP), Mercedes Pedraz Calvo (Judge, Audiencia Nacional), Marina Tavassi (Former President, Milan Court of Appeal | Professor of IP Law and Competition, University of Pavia) and Mélanie Thill-Tayara (Partner, Dechert).

Nathalie Dostert, Jacqueline Riffault-Silk, Sylvaine Poillot-Peruzzetto, Pascal Wilhelm, Lauriane Lépine Private Enforcement #3 Fault & negotiated proceedings: Recent developments on remedies and transactions

3rd Webinar of the 6th « Private Enforcement » Conference organised by Concurrences, in partnership with Wilhelm & Associés, with Nathalie Dostert (President of the Competition Law Chamber and Honorary Vice President, Paris Commercial Court), Lauriane Lépine-Sarandi (Deputy Rapporteur General, Autorité de la concurrence), Sylvaine Poillot-Peruzzetto (Conseiller en service extraordinaire, Cour de cassation), Jacqueline Riffault-Silk (Commercial Court honorary Dean, Cour de cassation) and Pascal Wilhelm (Partner, Wilhelm & Associés).

Patrick Hubert, Rafael P. Amaro, Gildas de Muizon, Nathalie Dostert, Brigitte Brun-Lallemand Private Enforcement #2 Assessment of damages: Current challenges

2nd Webinar of the 6th « Private Enforcement » Conference organised by Concurrences, in partnership with Deloitte and Orrick, with Rafael Amaro (Professor, University of Caen Normandy), Brigitte Brun-Lallemand (President, Economic Regulation Chamber (5/7), Paris Court of Appeal), Nathalie Dostert (President of the Competition Law Chamber and Honorary Vice President, Paris Commercial Court), Patrick Hubert (Partner, Orrick) and Gildas de Muizon (Partner, Head of the Economic Advisory practice, Deloitte).

Peter Roth, Bill Batchelor, Ingrid Vandenborre, Aurora Luoma, Bruce Macaulay, Helen Jenkins UK Competition & Antitrust Litigation

Webinar of the "Law & Economics" Series organised by Concurrences, in partnership with Skadden and Oxera, with Sir Peter Roth (President, Competition Appeal Tribunal), Bill Batchelor (Partner - Antitrust/Competition, Skadden), Helen Jenkins (Managing Partner, Oxera), Aurora Luoma (Counsel - Antitrust/Competition, Skadden), Bruce Macaulay (Partner - International Litigation and Arbitration, Skadden) and Ingrid Vandenborre (Partner - Antitrust/Competition, Skadden).

Juliane Kokott, Maria Jaspers, Manish Das, Kyriakos Fountoukakos, Milan Kristof, Aleksandra Boutin 2nd Cartels Workshop #1 Opening speech & Substantive issues

1st Webinar of the « 2nd Cartels Workshop » organised by Concurrences, in partnership with Herbert Smith Freehills and Positive Competition, with Juliane Kokott (Advocate General, Court of Justice), Aleksandra Boutin (Founding Partner, Positive Competition), Manish Das (Head of Competition Law, Lloyds Banking Group), Kyriakos Fountoukakos (Managing Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills), Maria Jaspers (Director - Cartels, DG COMP) and Milan Kristof (Référendaire, Court of Justice).

Dominique Gilles, Gildas de Muizon, Nathalie Dostert, Mélanie Thill-Tayara, Anne-Sophie Choné-Grimaldi Private Enforcement #3 Assessment of damages, passing on…

3rd Webinar of the « 5th Private Enforcement Conference » organised by Concurrences, in partnership with Dechert and Deloitte, with Anne-Sophie Choné (Professor, University Paris Nanterre), Dominique Gilles (Counsellor, Paris Court of Appeal), Gildas de Muizon (Partner, Head of the Economic Advisory practice, Deloitte), Nathalie Dostert (Vice President, Paris Commercial Court) and Mélanie Thill-Tayara (Partner, Dechert).

Olivera Boskovic, Laurence Idot, Maciej Szpunar, Wolfgang Wurmnest, Jacqueline Riffault-Silk Private Enforcement #2 International jurisdiction

2nd Webinar of the « 5th Private Enforcement Conference » organised by Concurrences, with Olivera Boskovic (Professor, University Paris Descartes), Laurence Idot (Emeritus professor, University Paris II Panthéon-Assas), Jacqueline Riffault-Silk (Commercial Court honorary dean, Cour de cassation), Maciej Szpunar (Advocate-General, CJEU) and Wolfgang Wurmnest (Professor, University of Augsburg).

Küllike Jürimäe, Sylvaine Poillot-Peruzzetto, Ingeborg Simonsson, Anna Vernet, Rafael P. Amaro, Xavier Taton Private Enforcement #1 Useful effect and effectiveness

1st Webinar of the « 5th Private Enforcement Conference » organised by Concurrences, in partnership with Linklaters, with Rafael Amaro (Professor, University of Caen Normandy), Küllike Jürimäe (Judge, CJEU), Sylvaine Poillot-Peruzzetto (Special counsellor, Cour de cassation), Ingeborg Simonsson (Judge, Patent and Market Court, Stockholm), Xavier Taton (Dispute Resolution Partner, Linklaters) and Anna Vernet (Head of Unit - ECN and private enforcement, DG COMP).

Aymeric Discours, Laurent Eymard, Peter Roth, Julie Klein Private Enforcement #4 Overview of recent national case law in the European Union

4th Webinar of the « 5th Private Enforcement Conference » organised by Concurrences, in partnership with McDermott Will & Emery and Hexagon Economics, with Aymeric Discours (Partner, McDermott Will & Emery), Laurent Eymard (Founding partner, Hexagon Economics), Julie Klein (Professor, University of Rouen) and Sir Peter Roth (President, Competition Appeal Tribunal).

Books

Nicolas Charbit, Sonia Ahmad Albert A. Foer Liber Amicorum

At a time of reckoning for the future of antitrust, this Liber Amicorum brings together a diverse collection of today’s leading thinkers to pay tribute to Albert Allen (Bert) Foer, founder of the American Antitrust Institute (AAI). In doing so, it illustrates the intellectual landscape of the (...)

Adrian Emch, Wendy Ng Wang Xiaoye Liber Amicorum

Without Professor Xiaoye Wang, Chinese competition law would not be in the shape it is today. Perhaps the key competition statute – the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) – would not even have been enacted without her relentless efforts to push the competition law agenda in China. Professor Wang’s 70th (...)

Stéphane Rodrigues Choice: A New Standard for Competition Law Analysis ?

In this book, ten prominent authors offer eleven contributions that provide their varying perspectives on the subject of consumer choice in the EU, Member States, and in the US. Various aspects of consumer choice are covered, such as the concept of freedom of choice in the application of EU (...)

Global Antitrust Economics - Current issues in Antitrust Law and Economics

Concurrences Review in partnership with the Global Antitrust Institute of the Law & Economics Center held the Global Antitrust Economics Conference at George Mason University School of Law on May 29,2015. The conference featured a keynote speech from Maureen Ohlhausen, Commissioner of the (...)

Frederic Jenny, Nicolas Charbit EU Competition Digest 2013

The purpose of this book is to compare and contrast EU competition case law with European Members States competition case law, and Members States competition case law with each other. To the best of our knowledge, no such a study had been carried out until today at this level, topic by topic, (...)

Chapters

John DeQ. Briggs Douglas H. Ginsburg Liber Amicorum : An Antitrust Professor on the Bench Re-Designing the American Antitrust Machine Part I: Treble Damages, Contribution and Claim Reduction

357 Douglas H. Ginsburg | An Antitrust Professor on the BenchLiber Amicorum - Volume I Re-Designing the American Antitrust Machine Part I: Treble Damages, Contribution and Claim Reduction John d EQ. b riggs * Axinn Abstract This is the first in a contemplated series of articles, and eventually (...)
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p r s t u v w