Table of Contents

The Goals of Competition Law

The Goals of Competition Law

ASCOLA Competition Law series

Edited by Daniel Zimmer

What are the normative foundations of competition law? That is the question at the heart of this book. Leading scholars consider whether this branch of law serves just one or more than one goal, and, if it serves to protect unfettered competition as such, how this goal relates to other objectives such as the promotion of economic welfare.

Chapter 19: Excessive Pricing and the Goals of Competition Law: An Enforcement Perspective – Comment on Ackermann

Jörg Philipp Terhechte

Subjects: economics and finance, law and economics, law - academic, competition and antitrust law, law and economics


Jörg Philipp Terhechte* 1 REAL AND FELT DIVERGENCE AND AN ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE The reanimated debate about the regulation or control of exploitative prices by competition authorities can demonstrate, inter alia, that the phenomenon of divergence of substantive standards and even of different goals of national and supranational competition or antitrust laws is often not about real divergence, but increasingly about felt divergence.1 I totally agree with the idea that the felt divergence between US and European approaches in the field of excessive pricing could be overstated if one starts to broaden the perspective: even where a selected competition jurisdiction denies the necessity for a regulation of monopoly profits, as the US does in principle,2 a deeper analysis of the whole regulatory environment of this jurisdiction * Dr iur, Professor of Law, University of Siegen and Research Fellow, Europa Kolleg Hamburg, Germany. 1 See, e.g., M Gal, ‘Monopoly Pricing as an Antitrust Offense in the U.S. and the EC: Two Systems’, (2004) 49 Antitrust Bulletin 343 et seq; for the background, H Schweitzer, ‘Parallels and Differences in the Attitude towards Single-Firm Conduct: What are the Reasons? The History Interpretation and Underlying Principles of Sec 2 Sherman Act and Art 82 EC’, European University InstituteWorking Paper Law, No 2007/32. 2 See US v American Can Co 230 F 859, 901-902 (D Md 1916) appeal dismissed, 256 US 706 (1921); Berkey Photo, Inc v Eastman Kodak Co 603 F 2d 263, 274 n 12 (2d Cir 1979); Blue Cross & Blue Shield United...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information