COURSE MANUAL

Fundamentals of Competition Law and Policy

Fall 2023

Course Instructors:
Shilpi Bhattacharya

1
 CONTENTS

PART I
General
Information……………………………………………………………………………….Page 3

PART II

a. Course
Description………………………………………………………………………………Page 4

b. Course
Aims…………………………………………………………………………………..Page 4

c. Intended Leaning Outcomes …………………………………………………...........Page 5

d. Grading of Student Achievement……………………………………………….......Page 5

e. Disability Support……………………………………………………………………….Page
8

PART III
a. Keyword
Syllabus………………………………………………………………………………….Page
7
b. Course
Policies…………………………………………………………………………………..Page
7

PART IV

a. Weekly Course Outline …………………………………………………………..........Page 9

b. Readings………………………………………………………………………………...Page
10

2
 PART I

General Information

General Information on Fundamentals of Competition Law and Policy offered by Jindal

Global Law School
of the AY 2023-24

The information provided herein is by the Course Coordinator. The following information
contains the official record of the details of the course.

This information shall form part of the University database and may be uploaded to the
KOHA Library system and catalogued and may be distributed amongst ____ year Law
students for B.A. (Hons) in Legal Studies; B.A.LL.B./B.B.A.LL.B.; LL.B.; LL.M. courses if
necessary.

Course
Title: Fundamentals of Competition Law and Policy
Course
Code:
Course
Duration: One Semester
No. of Credit
Units: 4
Level
:

3
Medium of
Instruction: English

4
 PART II

a. Course Description

Competition law (also known as Antitrust law) regulates the activities of firms in markets in
order to check unfair practices in the market. This is a specialized area of law that requires
students to orient themselves towards a new way of thinking. The truly interdisciplinary nature
of competition law as a discipline that integrates law and economics makes it a fascinating
subject of study. Competition law is in the limelight because of the increasing importance of the
digital economy and the growth of companies such as Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple.
The changing nature of markets is making it extremely important to understand the fundamental
principles governing competition law. Moreover, India’s competition regulator, the Competition
Commission of India plays a significant role in India’s regulatory landscape and many
businesses have been affected by its decisions.

Competition law is relevant for all students interested in understanding the regulation of markets,
business conduct and law and economics. This course will examine global competition law and
policy from a conceptual and philosophical perspective. Students will dissect business practices
and their policy relevance as well as the impact of competition enforcement on businesses and
markets. Competition law relies heavily on economic theory. In fact competition policy is
informed largely from the principles of economics. While economics is often daunting for
lawyers, the intuitions and philosophy behind these economic principles are important for law
and policy makers. With this in mind, this course aims to introduce students to the fundamental
principles of competition law globally. This course will focus on providing students with a broad
understanding of principles of competition law and different policy considerations that inform
the enforcement of competition law. It will examine and compare principles of US Antitrust law,
EU Competition law as well as Indian Competition law.

b. Course Aims

At the end of the course students should be able to:

(i) Understand the nature of different types of anticompetitive conduct in markets and the
implications of this conduct.
(ii) Have a framework in mind through which to determine whether particular conduct is
anticompetitive when advising clients or analyzing market conduct.
(iii) Understand the essential rules of US Antitrust Law, EU Competition Law and Indian
Competition Law.
(iv) Understand the different objectives of competition law in jurisdictions globally.
(v) Understand the economic principles underlying each type of anticompetitive conduct.
(vi) Develop their own thinking on competition policy and critically reflect on the law and
economic approach including the usefulness of competition law.

c. Intended Learning Outcomes

5
 Course Intended Learning Weightage Teaching and Learning Assessment
Outcomes Activities Tasks/
Activities
By the end of the course, students
should be able to:
Demonstrates the ability to 30% In-depth case discussions
understand and apply legal in class and ‘on-call’
principles and rules learnt in class system which engages
to different factual situations. with students’
Can understand the rationale 50% understanding of cases.
behind different kinds of business
behaviour and critically analyse its Lectures and case studies
impact on markets while taking into of on-going cases for
consideration the different which there may not be
objectives of competition law. satisfactory Competition
Is able to understand the intuitions 20% agency rulings.
behind economic principles and
their importance to legal Lectures and in-class
arguments. discussions as well as
watching some videos.

d. Grading of Student Achievement1

To pass this course, students must obtain a minimum of 40% in the cumulative aspects of
coursework, e.g. moot and final examination. End of semester exam will carry 50 marks
out of which students have to obtain a minimum of 15 marks to fulfil the requirement of
passing the course.

The details of the grades as well as the criteria for awarding such grades are provided below.

Letter Percentage Grade Definitions

Grade Of marks
O 80% and above Outstanding Outstanding work
with strong
evidence of
knowledge of the
subject matter,
excellent
organizational
1
Under extraordinary circumstances, the JGU Academic Council or the JGU Deans’ Council can suspend Clause D
or make it optional. If Clause D is suspended, the policy which will be framed by the School based on the decision
of the said bodies will supersede Clause D. However, whether a situation is extraordinary or not will be decided by
the said bodies only.

6
 capacity, ability to
synthesize and
critically analyse
and originality in
thinking and
presentation.
A+ 75 to 79.75% Excellent Sound knowledge
of the subject
matter, thorough
understanding of
issues; ability to
synthesize
critically and
analyse
A 70 to 74.75% Good Good
understanding of
the subject matter,
ability to identify
issues and provide
balanced solutions
to problems and
good critical and
analytical skills.
A- 65 to 69.75% Adequate Adequate
knowledge of the
subject matter to
go to the next level
of study and
reasonable critical
and analytical
skills.
B+ 60 to 64.75% Marginal Limited knowledge
of the subject
matter, irrelevant
use of materials
and poor critical
and analytical
skills.
B 55 to 59.75% Poor Poor
comprehension of
the subject matter;
poor critical and
analytical skills
and marginal use
of the relevant
materials.

7
B- 50 to 54.75% Pass “Pass” in a pass-
fail course. “P”
indicative of at
least the basic
understanding of
the subject matter.

NEW COURSE LETTER GRADES AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

Letter
Percentage Grade
Grad Interpretation
of Marks Points
e
Pass 1: Pass with Basic understanding of the
P1 45 - 49 2
subject matter.
Pass 2: Pass with Rudimentary understanding of
P2 40 - 44 1
the subject matter.
Fail: Poor comprehension of the subject matter;
poor critical and analytical skills and
F Below 40 0
marginal use of the relevant materials. Will
require repeating the course.
‘P’ represents the option of choosing between
Pass/Fail grading system over the CGPA grading
system in the COVID 19 semester in Spring
P Pass
2020. The option is provided when students
attain a minimum of 40 percentage marks under
the current grading structure in a given subject.
Extenuating circumstances preventing the
student from completing coursework assessment,
or taking the examination; or where the
Assessment Panel at its discretion assigns this
I Incomplete
grade. If an "I" grade is assigned, the
Assessment Panel will suggest a schedule for the
completion of work, or a supplementary
examination.

8
 e. Disability Support

JGU endeavours to make all its courses accessible to students. The Disability Support
Committee (DSC) has identified conditions that could hinder a student’s overall well-being.
These include physical and mobility related difficulties, visual impairment, hearing impairment,
mental health conditions and intellectual/learning difficulties e.g., dyslexia and dyscalculia.
Students with any known disability needing academic and other support are required to register
with the Disability Support Committee (DSC) by following the procedure specified
at https://jgu.edu.in/disability-support-committee/

Students who need support may register any time during the semester up until a month before the
end semester exam begins. Those students who wish to continue receiving support from the
previous semester, must re-register within the first month of a semester. Last minute registrations
and support might not be possible as sufficient time is required to make the arrangements for
support.

The DSC maintains strict confidentiality about the identity of the student and the nature of their
disability and the same is requested from faculty members and staff as well. The DSC takes a
strong stance against in-class and out-of-class references made about a student’s disability
without their consent and disrespectful comments referring to a student’s disability.

All general queries are to be addressed to [email protected]

9
 PART III

a. Keyword Syllabus

Competition Law, Antitrust Law, Law and Economics, Monopoly, Market Power, Market Share,
Relevant Market, Abuse of Dominance, Cartels, Price Fixing, Collusion, Mergers and
Acquisitions, Predatory Pricing, Tying, Resale Price Maintenance, Network effects, Two-sided
platforms, Vertical restraints, Horizontal restraints, Consumer Welfare, Producer Welfare.

b. Course/Class Policies

Cell Phones, Laptops and Similar Gadgets

Cell phones must be kept on ‘silent mode’ in class. The class will follow a strictly no cell phone
policy. This means that you cannot receive or make phone calls or use your phone in any way
while in class. Anyone found violating these rules would be asked to leave the class. Frequent
violators will be penalized.2

Laptops and Similar Gadgets

Laptops and similar gadgets are only to be used for making notes. Any use of these devices for
other purposes may lead to students being asked to leave the class.

Academic Integrity and Plagiarism

Learning and knowledge production of any kind is a collaborative process. Collaboration

demands an ethical responsibility to acknowledge who we have learnt from, what we have
learned, and how reading and learning from others have helped us shape our own ideas. Even our
own ideas demand an acknowledgement of the sources and processes through which those ideas
have emerged. Thus, all ideas must be supported by citations. All ideas borrowed from articles,
books, journals, magazines, case laws, statutes, photographs, films, paintings, etc., in print or
online, must be credited with the original source. If the source or inspiration of your idea is a
friend, a casual chat, something that you overheard, or heard being discussed at a conference or
in class, even they must be duly credited. If you paraphrase or directly quote from a web source
in the examination, presentation or essays, the source must be acknowledged. The university has
a framework to deal with cases of plagiarism. All form of plagiarism will be taken seriously by
the University and prescribed sanctions will be imposed on those who commit plagiarism.

Safe Space Pledge

This course may discuss a range of issues and events that might result in distress for some
students. Discussions in the course might also provoke strong emotional responses. To make sure
that all students collectively benefit from the course, and do not feel disturbed due to either the
content of the course or the conduct of the discussions. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all within
the classroom to pledge to maintain respect towards our peers. This does not mean that you need

2
This does not apply to Online teaching.

10
to feel restrained about what you feel and what you want to say. Conversely, this is about
creating a safe space where everyone can speak and learn without inhibitions and fear. This
responsibility lies not only with students, but also with the instructor.

P.S. The course instructor, as part of introducing the course manual, will discuss the scope of the
Safe Space Pledge with the class.

11
 PART IV

a. Weekly Course Outline

Introduction to Competition Law: what is competition, how do companies

compete in markets, what is the need to regulate competition, what is
competition law, broad outline of antitrust laws, different schools of
Week 1 thought, history of antitrust and the Indian competition regime, what is the
subject matter of competition law.
The theoretical basis for competition enforcement: laws of demand and
supply, market structures, monopoly, perfect competition, oligopoly,
efficiency, consumer surplus, producer surplus, concepts of cost and
Week 2 revenue, barriers to entry, natural monopoly.

Enforcement of competition law: CCI: its nature, structure and role, who
can bring a complaint, powers of CCI, how are proceedings conducted,
amendments to its structure in the Competition Amendment Bill, role of
DG, appellate power, comparison with institutional framework in other
Week 3 jurisdictions.
Objectives of Competition Law: the centrality of clearly defined objectives
to competition law, different types of goals, balancing competing goals of
Week 4 competition law.
Competition Policy: role of competition policy, important considerations
for competition policy in the past and in the digital age, regulatory
overlaps.
Week 5
Market Definition: its centrality to competition law, defining the relevant
Week 6 market, SSNIP test, substitutability, product market, geographic market.
Unilateral Conduct / Abuse of Dominance: what is market power and how
can it be measured, market share, size and resources of enterprise, different
ways of determining dominance, what is abuse of dominance, different
kinds of abuse, exploitative abuse, exclusionary abuse, predatory pricing,
excessive pricing, tying, essential facility doctrine, rebates, refusal to
supply, objective justification, efficiency defence, effects based approach.
Week 7-9
Agreements in Restraint of Competition and Price Fixing: what is an
agreement in competition law, what are the categories of agreements
punished under competition law, per se standards for assessing horizontal
agreements, is parallel pricing sufficient to constitute an agreement, tacit
collusion, hub and spoke conspiracies, the use of Single Economic Entity
Week 10 doctrine, leniency rules, penalties.
Vertical Restraints: difference between horizontal and vertical agreements,
rule of reason analysis for vertical agreements: anticompetitive foreclosure,
barriers to entry, inter brand and intra brand competition, free riding, kinds
of vertical agreements: resale price maintenance, exclusive supply, refusals
Week 11 to deal, exclusive distribution agreements.
Merger Review: different kinds of mergers, framework of merger review,

12
 unilateral effects, coordinated effects, AAEC analysis: entry, efficiencies,
innovation, failing firm defence, calculating HHI thresholds, behavioural
Week 12 - 13 and structural remedies.

Week 14 Remedies: private enforcement, penalties, criminal enforcement.

Week 15 Reading and Revision

b. Readings

WEEK 1

Introduction to Competition Law

Essential Reading:
1. Piet Slot & Martin Farley, An Introduction to Competition Law, Bloomsbury (2017).
2. Kenneth Davidson, Free Markets & Competition Laws, American Antitrust Institute.
3. Aditya Bhattacharjea, Of Omissions and Commissions: India’s Competition Laws, EPW
(2010).
4. How Adam Smith Would Fix Capitalism, https://www.ft.com/content/6795a1a0-7476-
11e8-b6ad-3823e4384287
5. Vijay Kumar Singh, ‘Competition Law and Policy in India: the Journey in a Decade’
[2011] NUJS L. REV. 523
6. Rounak Kumar Gunjan ‘Chaayos is doing everything to be the anti-Starbucks’ (The Ken,
16 July 2024) <https://the-ken.com/story/chaayos-is-doing-everything-to-be-the-anti-
starbucks/> accessed 25 August 2024
7. Lorenz M. An Introduction to EU Competition Law. Cambridge University Press; 2013.

Case: Coal India Ltd. v CCI, Supreme Court, 2023,

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/5094/5094_2017_6_1501_44710_Judgement_15-Jun-
2023.pdf

Further Reading & Materials:

1. William J. Kolasky, What Is Competition? A Comparison of U.S. and European
Perspectives (2004)

13
 2. Leah Brannon & Douglas Ginsburg, Antitrust Decisions of the US Supreme Court, 1967
to 2007, Competition Policy International (2007).
3. Maurice Stucke, Is Competition Always Good?, Journal of Antitrust Enforcement (2013).
4. Richard Whish, pp. 48-80 (focus on 49-74; you can also skim pp. 1-25, which are
relevant for the following lectures and classes).
Videos:
1. Why competition is good for business: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN-
8Gag7vBQ&index=1&list=PLJREEEp2I-xekJrmVFH-X21S-uHTG_R4x
2. John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=6MaJeW4XBxU
3. https://aeon.co/essays/we-should-look-closely-at-what-adam-smith-actually-believed
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcghGCBROR0#action=share
5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cemTusT9ufs&list=PLJREEEp2I-xekJrmVFH-
X21S-uHTG_R4x&index=5
6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soyALAFQH10

WEEKS 2-3

The theoretical basis for competition enforcement

Essential Reading:
1. Lorenz Moritz (2013), An Introduction To EU Competition (Economic and Legal
Foundations).
2. Herbert Hovenkamp, The Antitrust Enterprise: Principle and Execution (2008).
3. David Audtretsch, Divergent Views in Antitrust Economics, the Antitrust Bulletin
(1988).
4. Daniel Francis & Christopher Jon Sprigman, Antitrust: Principles, Cases & Materials,
American Bar Association (2023).
Videos:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMbw_O9m0Q4
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17lGsUYdta0

WEEK 3

14
The enforcement of competition law

Cases and other materials:

1. CCI v. Steel Authority of India, (2010) 10 SCC 744.
2. Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, Report of the Competition Law Review
Committee (2019).
3. John T. Dalton and Andrew J. Logan, ‘CREATIVE DESTRUCTION’ (Libertarianism, 22
January 2021) < https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/creative-destruction> accessed 27 August
2024.

Further Reading & Materials:

1. C.W., ‘Why is vigorous economic competition a good thing?’ (The Economist, 20 July 2018)
< https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/20/why-is-vigorous-economic-competition-
a-good-thing?cid1=cust/ddnew/email/n/n/20180720n/owned/n/n/ddnew/n/n/n/neu/
Daily_Dispatch/
email&etear=dailydispatch&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Dail
y_Dispatch&utm_term=20180720> accessed 27 August 2024.

WEEK 4

Objectives of Competition Law

Essential Reading:
1. Georgio Monti, EC Competition Law, Chapter on Economics and Competition Law, page
53.
2. Carl Shapiro, Protecting Competition in the American Economy: Merger Control, Tech
Titans & Labor Markets, Journal of Economic Perspectives (2019).
3. Lina Khan, Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox (2018).

Further Reading:
1. Robert Bork, The Antitrust Paradox, Free Press (1978).
2. Dennis Carlton, Does Antitrust Need to be Modernised?, 21 Journal of Economic
Perspectives (2007).
3. Eleanor Fox, The Efficiency Paradox, Oxford University Press (2014).
4. Barak Orbach, How Antitrust Lost Its Goal, 81(5) Fordham Law Review 2253 (2013).
5. Frank Easterbrook, The Limits of Antitrust, 63(1) Texas Law Review (1984).

15
 6. Chicago v. Harvard School, in practice https://truthonthemarket.com/2016/09/22/acting-
aags-policy-speech-sends-the-wrong-signals-on-antitrust-enforcement-or-a-wild-ride-
back-to-the-fifties-and-sixties/

WEEK 5

Competition Policy

Essential Reading:
1. American Antitrust Institute, A National Competition Policy: Unpacking the Problem of
Declining Competition and Setting Priorities Moving Forward (2016).
2. Aditya Bhattacharjea et al., Competition Law and Competition Policy in India: How the
Competition Commission has Dealt with Anticompetitive Restraints by Government
Entities, Review of Industrial Organisation (2018).
3. Aditya Bhattacharjea, India’s Competition Policy: An Assessment, EPW (2003).
4. Ariel Ezrachi, Sponge, Journal of Antitrust Enforcement (2017).
Cases:
5. CCI v. Bharti Airtel (2018 Supreme Court)
6. Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v. CCI, 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 592
7. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. CCI and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 480

Other materials:
1. How to Build a Better Antitrust Policy, Podcast with Herbert Hovenkamp,
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/anti-trust/
2. MM Sharma, Make India Competitive: India Badly Needs a National Competition Policy
– Essential for Growth in a Free Market Economy (2020).
3. News article, http://profit.ndtv.com/news/banking-finance/article-nationalised-banks-
exempted-from-cci-approval-for-mergers-1744631 (CCI Approval for mergers of Banks
– where nationalized banks are exempted, Policy Question).
4. Jonathan Baker & Steven Salop, Antitrust, Competition Policy & Inequality (2015).
5. Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust & Information Technologies, Florida Law Review (2015).
6. John Oliver, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00wQYmvfhn4

16
 7. In Reference of Reliance Jio Case, TRAI and CCI controversy:
http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-commentary/fierce-contest-over-
competition/
8. Pablo Colomo, A Contribution to Shaping Competition Policy in the Era of Digitalization

WEEKS 6-7

Market Power

Essential readings:
1. Edward F. Sherry, Market Definition, The Palgrave Encyclopaedia of Strategic
Management.
2. Summary: https://www.theantitrustattorney.com/elements-monopolization-claim-federal-
antitrust-laws/
3. European Commission notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of
Community competition law (97/C 372/03).
4. Commission Guidance Paper on enforcement priorities in applying Article [102 TFEU]
to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings [2009] OJ C 45/7[hereinafter
Guidance Paper], para. 9-18.
5. Jonathan Baker, Market Power in the US Economy Today, Washington Centre for
Equitable Growth, http://equitablegrowth.org/research-analysis/market-power-in-the-u-s-
economy-today/
6. Richard Whish, Competition Law, 6th Edition, OUP, Oxford, 2009, pp. 25-46
Further readings and other materials:
1. Louis Kaplow, On The Relevance of Market Power, 130 Harvard Law Review 1303
(2017).
2. Louis Kaplow, Market Definition, Market Power, International Journal of Industrial
Organization (2016).
3. Jonathan Baker, Exclusion as a Core Competition Concern, 78 Antitrust Law Journal
(2013).
4. New Definitions of Relevant Market and the Assault on Antitrust, Robert Pitofsky,
Columbia Law Review, Vol. 90, No. 7 (Nov., 1990), pp. 1805-1864.
5. CCI on SSNIP Test: http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/tjf24L0hvFl1kfnJkrbaMO/Of-
cycle-rickshaws-and-competition-law.html

17
Cases:
1. Case 27/76, United Brands v Commission [1978] ECR 207, paras. 10-35
2. United States v Dentsply International, Inc, 399 F.3d 181 (3d Cir.2005), pp.9-20

WEEKS 8-9

Unilateral Conduct / Abuse of Dominance

Essential Reading:
1. Richard Whish, Competition Law, 6th Edition, OUP, Oxford, 2009, pp. 171-206 and pp.
558-564.
2. International Competition Network: Unilateral Conduct Workbook (Chapter 4: Predatory
Pricing).
3. Pinar Akman, The Tests of Illegality under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, The Antitrust
Bulletin (2016).
4. Pablo Ibanez Colomo, The Future of Article 102 after Intel.
Cases:
1. Verizon v. Law Offices of Curtis Trinko
2. Case T-201/04 Microsoft Corp. v Commission of the European Communities
3. Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown and Williamson
4. Case 85/76, Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. AG v Commission [1979] ECR 461, in particular
paras 21-49
5. Case C-333/94 P, Tetra Pak International SA v Commission (Tetra Pak II) [1996] ECR I-
5951, in particular paras. 21-33
6. Case C-7/97 Oscar Bronner v Mediaprint EU:C:1998:569 [facts at paras.4-9, and legal
issues at paras.38-47]
7. Intel v. European Commission, Judgment of the European Court of Justice, Case – C-
413/14.
CCI cases:
8. Bharti Airtel v. Reliance Industries Limited & Ors Case No. 03 of 2017

Further Reading:
1. Robert Bork & Gregory Sidak, What does Chicago School Teach about Internet Search &
Antitrust Treatment of Google, Journal of Competition Law & Economics (2012).
2. Predatory Pricing and Related Practices under Section 2 of the Sherman Act; Areeda,
Phillip ; Turner, Donald F. 88 Harv. L. Rev. 697 (1974-1975).
3. C. Ahlborn & D. Evans, “The Microsoft Judgment and its Implications for Competition
Policy towards Dominant Firms in Europe” (2009) 75 Antitrust LJ 887.
4. J. Vickers, “Abuse of Market Power”, 115 Economic Journal No. 504, pp. F224- 261.

18
 5. Avirup Bose, Network effect in India’s Online Businesses. A competition Law Analysis,
30th September, 2016
6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cemTusT9ufs&index=8&list=PLJREEEp2I-
xekJrmVFH-X21S-uHTG_R4x
7. Article in The Economist on EU's policy on abuse of dominance, Available at:
https://www.economist.com/news/business/21728979-she-rich-worlds-most-powerful-
trustbuster-margrethe-vestager-championing-consumers-or.
8. Antitrust: Commission fines Google €1.49 billion for abusive practices in online
advertising: https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1770_en.htm?mod=article_inline

WEEK 10

Agreements in Restraint of Competition and Price Fixing

Essential Reading:
1. Richard Whish, Competition Law, 6th Edition, OUP, Oxford, 2009, pp. 513-558.
2. Roger Van den Bergh & Peter Camesasca, Comparative Competition Law and
Economics, Edward Elgar (2017) 99-135.
3. European Commission's Guidance on Enforcement Priorities for Article 82/102.
Cases:
1. Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v U.S, 221 U.S. 1 (1910)
2. Northern Pac R Co v. United States, 356 U.S. 1 (1958)
3. ECJ, Cases C-403 and C-429/08, Football Association Premier League v. QC Leisure,
Judgment of 4 October 2011, not yet reported, para. 134-146.
4. Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208 (1939)
5. Case C-209/07, Competition Authority v Beef Industry Development Society Ltd and
Barry Brothers (Carrigmore) Meats Ltd EU:C:2008:643

CCI Cases:
1. Pune Municipal Corp. Case, CCI

Other Material on Cartels:

1. Lysine cartel - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPXTsPS-hyw
2. Price fixing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf3k0b5Cvh4&list=PLJREEEp2I-
xekJrmVFH-X21S-uHTG_R4x&index=3
3. Harms of cartels - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQlvYRPhUyc
4. Advising businesses on information sharing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=mvB1wQQjnGk&index=6&list=PLJREEEp2I-xekJrmVFH-X21S-uHTG_R4x

19
 5. Bid rigging: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjoQvDKW28U&list=PLJREEEp2I-
xekJrmVFH-X21S-uHTG_R4x&index=3
6. Dividing and sharing markets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=ndwO9sm3DLI&index=4&list=PLJREEEp2I-xekJrmVFH-X21S-uHTG_R4x
7. The Informant – Steven Soderbergh (2009)
a. Interview of the Whistleblower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=6TvW4AuVCsM

WEEK 11

Vertical Restraints:

Readings:
1. Roger Van den Bergh & Peter Camesasca, Comparative Competition Law and Economics,
Edward Elgar (2017) page numbers will be supplied.
2. Richard Whish, Competition Law, 6th Edition, OUP, Oxford, 2009
3. Vikas Kathuria, Vertical Restraints under Indian Competition Law: Whither Law and
Economics, Journal of Antitrust Enforcement (2021)

Cases:
1. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., DBA Kay’s Kloset . . . Kay’s
Shoes 551 U. S. ____ (2007)
2. Ohio v. Amex
3. Continental TV, Inc v. GTE Slyvania, 433 U.S. 36 (1977)

CCI case:
1. FX Enterprise v. Hyundai, CCI Case No. 36 & 82 of 2014, available at
http://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/36%20and%2082%20of%202014.pdf

Other materials:
1. Suppliers telling retailers what to charge, available at, https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=hObZs6m2jhw&index=7&list=PLJREEEp2I-xekJrmVFH-X21S-uHTG_R4x
2. John Sergeant on Resale Price Maintenance, available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJJIPyVg-l8
Video on Vertical Restrains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=hObZs6m2jhw&index=7&list=PLJREEEp2I-xekJrmVFH-X21S-uHTG_R4x

WEEKS 12-13

20
Merger Review

Reading:
1. ICN Merger Guidelines Workbook (April 2006).
2. Council Regulation n. 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations
between undertakings OJ (2004), L 24/1
3. Richard Whish, Competition Law, 6th Edition, OUP, Oxford, 2009, pp.798-843
(emphasize on pp. 817-827), pp. 849-864
4. Simon Bishop, Andrea Lofaro and Francesco Rosati, ‘Turning the tables: why vertical
and conglomerate mergers are different’, European Competition Law Review (2006), vol.
27, n. 7, pp. 403-406
5. Guidelines on the assessment of non-horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on
the control of concentrations between undertakings OJ (2008) C 265/6, paras. 28-77

Cases:
1. CK Telecoms vs. European Commission, Judgment of the General Court (2020),
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?
docid=226867&mode=lst&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&
cid=6483609
2. Commission Decision of 7 October 2011, Microsoft/Skype, Case COMP/M.6281, in
particular paras. 133-170
3. Case T-342/99, Airtours plc v Commission [2002] ECR II-2585, paras. 56-120
4. FTC v. Staples / Office Depot (2006 and 2016).
CCI cases:
1. Combination order for notice filed by Holcim Limited and Lafarge SA (Combination
Registration No. C-2014/07/190), Available at:
http://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/C-2014-07-190_0.pdf
Further Reading:
1. Damien Gerard, ‘Merger Control Policy: How to Give Meaningful Consideration to
Efficiency Claims?’, Common Market Law Review (2003), vol. 40, n. 6, pp. 1367-1412
2. Popular media piece: The Bayer-Monsanto merger kills innovation and must be stopped,
available at, http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/362915-the-bayer-monsanto-merger-
kills-innovation-and-must-be-stopped
3. CCI requiring remedies for a merger review, available at,
https://www.vantageasia.com/massive-merger-required-cci-approval/
4. EU Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on
the control of concentrations between undertakings: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52004XC0205(02)&from=EN

21
WEEK 14

Remedies: private enforcement, penalties, criminal enforcement.

Reading:
1. Michal Gal & Rivi Dahan, ‘Legal Obstacles to Private Enforcement of Competition
Law’, Market and Competition Law Review (2019), vol. 3, 133.
2. Whelan, “Cartel Criminalization and the Challenge of Moral Wrongfulness,” 33 OJLS
535 (2013)
Cases:
1. Apple v. Pepper, 587 U.S. (2019).
2. MCX Stock Exchange Ltd. & Ors. vs National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. & Ors.,
CASE NO. 13/2009

WEEK 15

Reading and Revision

22