Antitrust remedies. Where there is a violation of the antitrust rules, there must be consequences. This can take the form of fines or damages for injured parties, but also structural or behavioral remedies designed to maintain or restore competitive conditions.
Antitrust remedies have become a hot topic in recent months. Prominent politicians around the world are calling for certain technology companies to be “broken up” for alleged antitrust infringements. In parallel, there have been significant policy shifts in the U.S. as regards the correct approach to remedies in merger enforcement.
The contributions to this Chronicle discuss the relative merits of structural and behavioral remedies for both merger and antitrust enforcement in light of the latest controversies, legal developments and empirical evidence.
On the antitrust side, European enforcers at the national level have gained new powers to impose effective antitrust remedies under the 2019 ECN+ Directive. But, as the contributions to this Chronicle discuss, to be effective, a remedy must be carefully tailored to the case.
Depending on the facts, it can take the form of a simple prohibition (“bringing the infringement to an end”) or a positive obligation (a “duty to deal”). Even “structural” remedies (i.e. divestments) are possible in appropriate abuse (and potentially cartel) cases.
On the merger side, U.S. enforcers have recently grappled with the enforcement of past m...