08 August, 2011

Avoiding Horizontal Information "Exchange" - Mission Impossible? (with translation)

So we had a discussion about this one in Johannes Zöttel's blog:
"Kollege Bach berichtet von einer Frage, die in einem Spring Meeting-Panel zum Thema Informationsaustausch aufkam:
Wettbewerber ruft an und gibt eine Preiserhöhung in Höhe von X zum Termin Y bekannt.
Ich habe an dem Programm nicht teilgenommen; es laufen parallel in jedem Slot zwischen vier und sieben Veranstaltungen. Ich reiche die Frage daher bequem an Sie durch:
Was tun?
  • Auflegen?
  • Ein freundliches “geht mich nichts an”?
  • Empörte Zurückweisung unter verbaler Verwarnung?
  • Einschaltung eines Rechtsbeistands zur Abfassung einer schriftlichen Stellungnahme?
  • Kronzeugenantrag?
Wichtiger:
Die Information ist nun mal da. Rationales unternehmerisches Verhalten würde zu einer (autonomen) Anpassung der eigenen Preise führen:
  • Erlaubt?
  • Wenn ja, in welchem Umfang?
  • Vorsichtsmaßnahmen?
  • Stillhalteperiode (freeze) erforderlich?
  • Gegenbewegung bei der Preissetzung zur Vermeidung des bösen Scheins?
(Interessanter: Wie kommt es eigentlich dazu, dass der Konkurrent denkt, man würde die Information hören wollen?)
Offenbar wusste im Panel niemand eine robuste Antwort. Wäre bei uns ad hoc wahrscheinlich nicht anders."
For english speakers in short: A competitor calls and announces a price increase by x percent on date y.  What do you do?
A) Hang up?
B) "Doesn't concern me"
C) Indignant rejection under verbal warning?
D) Call your lawyer?
E) Apply for leniency?

And, more importantly: What do you do about the information? Rational economic behaviour would lead to (independently) increasing prices

A) Allowed?

B) If so, to what extent
C) Take precautionary measures
D) Don't do anything?
E) Move in the opposite direction?

Also, the Commission recently published "Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to horizontal co-operation agreement"

These contain the following passages, that don't exactly make the above problem easier to solve:  
"62. A situation where only one undertaking discloses strategic information to its competitor(s) who accept(s) it can also constitute a concerted practice. Such disclosure could occur, for example, through contacts via mail, emails, phone calls, meetings etc. It is then irrelevant whether only one undertaking unilaterally informs its competitors of its intended market behaviour, or whether all participating undertakings inform each other of the respective deliberations and intentions. When one undertaking alone reveals to its competitors strategic information concerning its future commercial policy, that reduces strategic uncertainty as to the future operation of the market for all the competitors involved and increases the risk of limiting competition and of collusive behaviour. For example, mere attendance at a meeting where a company discloses its pricing plans to its competitors is likely to be caught by Article 101, even in the absence of an explicit agreement to raise prices. When a company receives strategic data from a competitor (be it in a meeting, by mail or electronically), it will be presumed to have accepted the information and adapted its market conduct accordingly unless it responds with a clear statement that it does not wish to receive such data.
63. Where a company makes a unilateral announcement that is also genuinely public, for example through a newspaper, this generally does not constitute a concerted practice within the meaning of Article 101(1). However, depending on the facts underlying the case at hand, the possibility of finding a concerted practice cannot be excluded, for example in a situation where such an announcement was followed by public announcements by other competitors, not least because strategic responses of competitors to each other’s public announcements (which, to take one instance, might involve readjustments of their own earlier announcements to announcements made by competitors) could prove to be a strategy for reaching a common understanding about the terms of coordination."
So, mission impossible, or what?


No comments:

Post a Comment