In this issue:
Information exchanges between competitors have long challenged global competition authorities. Whether via trade associations or otherwise, such exchanges can be productive for consumers—enabling cost savings through collective know-how re improving products or production efficiency—or detrimental, hiding price-fixing or bid-rigging. And with data now a global product, such challenges will only increase in complexity. Starting with a case study of egregious competitive disregard, this colloquium looks at regulating such exchanges and, in particular, at the very real risks such exchanges pose for unwary companies. And in a special article, we join the debate that the USCC started by making antitrust fines officially a priority for 2015.
Information Exchange: Productive Cooperation or Harmful Collusion?
An antitrust case is not the place to debate the merits of competition. Jarod Bona (Bona Law)
Grey is most often the color of information exchanges. Pedro Callol (Callol Law)
In considering how collaboration differs from collusion, it is useful to think of form-based versus effects-based approaches. Neha Georgie
Trade associations have been an enforcement focus of antitrust authorities in Asia, particularly in China, in recent years. Mark Jephcott & Tom Kemp (Herbert Smith Freehills)
What is needed, above all, is the commitment to make competition compliance a priority. Mark Katz (Davies Ward)
Of Special Interest
A shift in focus—from the stick (the penalty) to the carrot (compliance incentives)—would ultimately reduce crime and protect U.S. consumers. Kathryn Hellings & Daniel E. Shulak (Hogan Lovells US LLP)