Relaxing whilst doing Competition Law is not an Oxymoron

Archive for October 31st, 2017

Non-Competition News (or sort of)

with one comment

[Below is a selection of top news stories of the day for subscribers of Chillin’Competition. We welcome cooperative journalism and will reward (with the last meme mug) the best additional news clip written in the comments to this post before the end of the week]

– A U.S operator has been charged with colluding with Russian competitors in order to boycott a rival. The parent operator argues with a forceful and carefully crafted detailed legal argument that THERE IS NO COLLUSION, denies any having exercised direct influence, claims that any wrongdoing is attributable to a rogue employee and invokes the counterfactual argument to claim that he would have won the targeted rival even in the absence of the restriction. 

-The geographic market definition of the Spanish market is being contested for reasons that reportedly have to do with a flawed underlying economic analysis and a will to prohibit cross subsidiziation across regional segments. Acting on that premise, certain operators decided to go ahead with a given split up (“the contemplated Transaction”) even though their shifting majority did not grant them control nor the ability to trump veto rights. Facing accusations of gun jumping, they have travelled to Brussels and now seek a referral. [Jokes aside, for my real views on this matter, see here]. 

-Propelled by the annulment of the decision in Liberty Global/Ziggo, a number of citizens in the U.K. are requesting a new analysis of the UK/NHS (Brexit) deal. They claim failure to state reasons to dismiss all theories of harm and also invoke the Facebook/Whatsapp precedent asking for a fine to be levied for the deliberate submission of inaccurate information to decision makers. 

– Pablo Ibañez Colomo, who holds simultaneous positions at competing Institutions including the College of Europe and the LSE, alleges that he was foreclosed from speaking at the Chillin’Competition conference last week, which he claims is an essential facility for the spreading of ideas with questionable merits. In a claim reminiscent of the one at issue in Flip Side Prods. Inc v. Jam Prods Ltd, 843 F.2d 1024 (7th Circ.) cert. denied 109 S.Ct. 261 (1988), he argues that he should have been given FRAND speaking terms and that his co-blogger favoured himself by self-benefitting from preferential placement in the conference programme.

Written by Alfonso Lamadrid

31 October 2017 at 12:40 pm

Posted in Uncategorized