Competition

Concerted Action vs Unilateral Conduct in Competition Law: A Critique – PART II

A concerted action perpetuated by various persons or enterprises is different from the unilateral conduct of an individual entity, as the latter is not accompanied with the element of “concurrence of wills”. That is why Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 are different in their scope and operation.The second part of the article comprehensively discusses the case of Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Limited and argues that, despite a statutory distinction, the approach undertaken by the Competition Commission of India has resulted in conflation of the paradigms used to assess anti-competitive agreements with those relating to the abuse of dominance. Continue reading Concerted Action vs Unilateral Conduct in Competition Law: A Critique – PART II

Competition

Concerted Action vs Unilateral Conduct in Competition Law: A Critique – PART I

A concerted action perpetuated by various persons or enterprises is different from the unilateral conduct of an individual entity, as the latter is not accompanied with the element of “concurrence of wills”. That is why Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 are different in their scope and operation.

The first part of the article examines in detail the differential treatment accorded to concerted action and unilateral behaviour, by Competition authorities in the EU and the US and ascertains that unilateral restraint of competition and trade cannot be evaluated under the lens of the standards that are used to determine coordination of behaviour or collusion between undertakings. Continue reading Concerted Action vs Unilateral Conduct in Competition Law: A Critique – PART I