Predatory Pricing
Content:
1. Enforcement ............................................................................................ 2
2. Justifications and Defences in Agency Response ................................... 3
3. Measures of Cost I .................................................................................. 4
4. Measures of Cost II ........................................................................ 5
5. Types of Evidence Relied on, Intent, and Effects ............................... 6
6. Recoupment .................................................................................. 7
1. Predatory Pricing – Enforcement
Can private parties challenge
predatory conduct?
Is predatory pricing civil,
criminal or both?
Bulgaria
Yes
Civil
Czech Republic
Yes
Civil
Denmark
Yes
Both
France
Yes
Both
Germany
Yes
Civil
Hungary
Yes
Civil
Ireland
Yes
Both
Italy
Yes
Civil
Latvia
Yes
Civil
Lithuania
Yes
Civil
Slovak Republic
Not available
Not available
United Kingdom
Yes
Civil
Norway
Yes
Civil
Switzerland
Yes
Civil
Turkey
Yes
Civil
Canada
No for civil, yes for criminal
Both
Japan
Yes
Both
New Zealand
Yes
Civil
United States
Yes
Civil
Source: International Competition Network, Report on Predatory Pricing, 2008, p. 34-35.
Page 2 of 7
2. Predatory Pricing – Justifications and Defences in Agency Response
Are justifications or defences permitted?
Is the burden of proof
on the dominant firm?
Bulgaria
Yes
Not available
Czech Republic
Yes
Not available
Denmark
Yes
Yes
France
Yes
Yes
Germany
Yes
Not available
Hungary
Yes
Yes
Ireland
Yes
Yes
Italy
Yes
Not available
Latvia
Not available
Not available
Lithuania
Not available
Not available
Yes
Yes
Not available
Not available
Switzerland
Yes
Not available
Turkey
Yes
No
Canada
Yes
Not available
Japan
Yes
Not available
New Zealand
Yes
Not available
United States
Yes
Yes
United Kingdom
Norway
Source: International Competition Network, Report on Predatory Pricing, 2008, p. 42-43.
Page 3 of 7
3. Predatory Pricing – Measures of Cost I
Cost measures used
Does price
have to be
below a
cost
measure?
Below
marginal
cost
Below
average
variable
cost
Below
average
avoidable
cost
Below long
run average increment cost
Below
average
total cost
Other
measure
of cost
Bulgaria
Yes
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Czech Republic
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Denmark
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
France
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Germany
Yes
n.a.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
n.a.
Hungary
Yes
n.a.
Yes
n.a.
n.a.
Yes
n.a.
Ireland
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Italy
Yes
n.a.
Yes
n.a.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Latvia
Yes
n.a.
Yes
n.a.
n.a.
Yes
n.a.
Lithuania
Yes
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Yes
Slovak Republic
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
United Kingdom
Yes
n.a.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
n.a.
Norway
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Switzerland
Yes
n.a.
Yes
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Turkey
Yes
n.a.
Yes
n.a.
n.a.
Yes
n.a.
Canada
Yes
n.a.
n.a.
Yes
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Japan
Yes
n.a.
Yes
n.a.
n.a.
Yes
n.a.
New Zealand
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
United States
Yes
n.a.
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Source: International Competition Network, Report on Predatory Pricing, 2008, p. 36-37.
Page 4 of 7
4. Predatory Pricing – Measures of Cost II
Is the same
cost measure applied
in all cases?
Safe harbour
above a
particular
benchmark?
Could price
above
average total
cost ever be
predatory?
Presumption
below a
particular
benchmark?
Is the
presumption
rebuttable?
Must
predation
occur in
dominant
market?
Bulgaria
Yes
Yes
n.a.
No
n.a.
No
Czech Republic
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Denmark
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
France
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Germany
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Hungary
No
Yes
No
No
n.a.
No
Ireland
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Italy
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Latvia
No
No
No
No
n.a.
Yes
Lithuania
No
No
No
No
n.a.
Yes
Slovak Republic
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
United Kingdom
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Norway
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Switzerland
n.a.
No
n.a.
No
n.a.
No
Turkey
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Canada
Yes
Yes
No
No
n.a.
Yes
Japan
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
New Zealand
No
No
No
No
n.a.
Yes
United States
No
Yes
No
No
n.a.
Yes
Source: International Competition Network, Report on Predatory Pricing, 2008, p. 36-37.
Page 5 of 7
5. Predatory Pricing – Types of Evidence Relied on, Intent, and Effects
Is dominant firm’s
cost data used?
Is cost data of other
firms used?
Is intent relevant?
Are effects required,
such as market
foreclosure or
consumer harm?
Bulgaria
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Czech Republic
Yes
Not available
Yes
Yes
Denmark
Yes
No
Yes
No
France
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Germany
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes and no
Hungary
Not available
Not available
No
Yes
Ireland
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Italy
Yes
No
No
Yes
Latvia
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Lithuania
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Slovak Republic
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
United Kingdom
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Switzerland
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Turkey
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Canada
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes (civil cases)
Japan
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
New Zealand
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
United States
Yes
No
No
Yes
Norway
Source: International Competition Network, Report on Predatory Pricing, 2008, p. 40-41.
Page 6 of 7
6. Predatory Pricing – Recoupment
Is recoupment
required?
Is recoupment
not required
but a factor
considered?
Is the assessment
conducted
separately?
Is there a specific
recoupment
calculation?
Is there a time
period for
recoupment?
Can recoupment
occur in a
different market?
What degree of
likelihood of
recoupment is
required?
Bulgaria
No
No
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Czech Republic
No
Yes
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Denmark
No
Yes
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
France
Yes
n.a.
No
No
No
Yes
Possible
Germany
No
No
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Hungary
Yes
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Probable
Ireland
Yes
n.a.
Yes
No
No
No
Balance of
probabilities
Italy
Yes
n.a.
Yes
No
No
No
Probability
Latvia
No
Yes
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Lithuania
No
Yes
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Slovak Republic
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
United Kingdom
No
Yes
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Yes
n.a.
Norway
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Switzerland
Yes
n.a.
Yes
No
No
No
Possibility
Turkey
No
Yes
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Canada
Yes
n.a.
Yes
No
No
Yes
Likely
Japan
No
No
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
New Zealand
Yes
n.a.
Yes
No
No
n.a.
n.a.
United States
Yes
n.a.
Yes
No
No
Yes
Dangerous
probability
Source: International Competition Network, Report on Predatory Pricing, 2008, p. 38-39.
Page 7 of 7