1. Single Firm Conduct: EU / US convergences and divergences
Michel Debroux
November 28, 2007
Brussels

2. " " " " Who said « divergences » ? …
“We are concerned that the standard applied to unilateral conduct (…) may have the unfortunate consequence of harming consumers by chilling innovation and discouraging competition”
"
"
“In the US, the antitrust laws are enforced to protect consumers by protecting competition, not competitors ..”
"

3. Convergences
In the EU, antitrust enforcement remains primarily a matter of State (or EC) authorities, with limited –although increasing – role of (a) criminal penalties and (b) private damage actions.
But on some major issues, even though enforcement tools, procedures or priorities may differ, there is no divergence on the basic principles :
Cartel enforcement and tools
Horizontal mergers
Need for international cooperation

4. Single Firm Conduct Approach: Divergences ?
Different legal ground:
EU: « abuse of dominant position » and importance of the achievement of the Single Market
US: Monopolization or Attempted Monopolization

5. Single Firm Conduct Approach: Divergences ?
Stated similar objective: preventing harm to consumer
But the devil is in the details: how to assess actual or potential harm to consumers?
Which test?
Example: should the ability of a dominant firm to recoup losses be taken into account in the predation test?

6. Single Firm Conduct Approach: Divergences ?
Innovation and Antitrust
Is the Microsoft ruling an invitation to “chill innovators”?
« Bundling » and « fostering innovation »: the ruling’s lessons

7. For more information on Hogan & Hartson, please visit us at
Baltimore
Beijing
Berlin
Boulder
Brussels
Caracas
Colorado Springs
Denver
Geneva
Hong Kong
London
Los Angeles
Miami
Moscow
Munich
New York
Northern Virginia
Paris
Shanghai
Tokyo
Warsaw
Washington, DC