User:Slai99/sandbox

Anti-competitive practices are business or government practices that unlawfully prevent or reduce competition in a market .[1][2] The debate about the morality of certain business practices termed as being anti-competitive has continued both in the study of the history of economics and in the popular culture. Anti-trust laws differ among state and federal laws to ensure businesses do not engage in competitive practices that harm other, usually smaller, businesses or consumers. These laws are formed to promote healthy competition within a free market by limiting the abuse of monopoly power. Competition allows companies to compete in order for products and services to improve; promote innovation; and provide a more choices for consumers to preference. Some business practices may be pro-competitive, economic methodological tests and empirical legal cases are used to test whether business activity constitutes as anti-competitive behavior. .

Types

 * Dumping, also known as predatory pricing, is a commercial strategy for which a company sells a product at an aggressively low price in a competitive market at a loss. A company with large market share and is able to temporarily sacrifice selling a product or service at below average cost can drive competitors out of the market, after which the company would be free to raise prices for a greater profit. For example, many developing countries have accused China of dumping. In 2006, the country was accused of dumping silk and satin in the Indian markets at  a cheaper rate which affected the local manufacturers adversely.[3]


 * Exclusive dealing, where a retailer or wholesaler is obliged by contract to only purchase from the contracted supplier. This mechanism prevents retailers to lessen profit maximisation and/or consumer choice. . In 1999, Dentsply entered a 7 years court complaint by the U.S, the dental wholesaler had been successfully sued for using monopoly power to restrain trade using exclusive dealings within contract requirements.


 * Price fixing, where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market by not engaging in competition with each other. In 2018, travel agency giant, Flight Centre was fined $12.5 million for encouraging a collusive price fixing plan between 3 international airlines from between 2005-2009


 * Refusal to deal, e.g., two companies agree not to use a certain vendor. In 2010, Cabcharge refused 'on commercial terms, to allow Cabcharge's non-cash payment instruments to be accepted and processed electronically by Travel Tab/Mpos' system for the payment, by non-cash means, of taxi fares by taxi passengers' and denied 'requests to it by Travel Tab/Mpos to agree, on commercial terms, to allow Cabcharge's non-cash payment instruments to be accepted and processed electronically by Travel Tab/Mpos' system for the payment, by non-cash means, of taxi fares by taxi passengers' - penalties for the first and second refusal were $2 million and $9 million respectively.


 * Dividing territories, an agreement by two companies to stay out of each other's way and reduce competition in the agreed-upon territories. Also known as 'market sharing', a practice in which businesses geographically divide or allocate customers using contractual agreements that include non-competition on established customers, not producing the same goods or services and/or selling within specific regions . Boral and CSR formed a pre-mix concrete cartel and was penalised for bid rigging, price fixing and market sharing at an amount over $6.6million and a maximum of $100,000 on each of the 6 executives involved. The companies had agreed to recognise clients as belonging to suppliers without competition over regular meetings and phone conversations. Company market shares were monitored to ensure the agreement was not breached - this led to over-charging on construction quotes which were used by federal, state and local government projects.

Tying, where products that are not naturally related must be purchased together. This incumbent strategy forces the buyer to purchase an unnecessary product from a separate market, implicitly lessening competition in various markets by increasing unnatural barriers to entry as entrants are unable to compete on a full line of products nor on price. In 2006, Apple iTunes iPod lost a $10million a 10 year anti-trust case when iPods sold between September 2006 to March 2009 that were only compatible with tracks from the iTunes Store or those downloaded from CDs.
 * Bulleted list item

Vertical Mergers
The Chicago School argues that vertical mergers, usually formed under anti-competitive intention, may be pro-competitive to eliminate double marginalisation. A chain of monopolists under can cause prices that extract beyond consumer surplus as wholesalers mark up prices, retailers have the power to transfer this cost price onto the retail price.