*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).
The latest issue of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (Volume 24 Part 4) contains the following material:
- Some Freely Ranging Thoughts
Margin Squeezes as a Misuse of Market Power – Paul McLachlan
American and European competition law on single firm conduct has substantially diverged. The United States no longer recognises margin squeeze conduct as being illegal, whereas the European Union has imposed nine-figure fines for margin squeezes as an abuse of dominance. When the issue reached the New Zealand Supreme Court, New Zealand followed the European approach. There has never been a s 46 case in Australia based on a margin squeeze. But margin squeezes have formed a substantial part of Australian competition law enforcement through the regulatory settings in the telecommunications industry and “competition notices” issued against Telstra for margin squeezes. This article surveys these international developments and looks at the Australian enforcement actions to determine how an Australian court might approach a s 46 margin squeeze case.
In 2016 the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission made its commitment to Indigenous consumer protection an enduring compliance and enforcement priority. The Commission, known by some Indigenous consumers as the “Your Rights Mob”, is working in partnership with Indigenous community leaders, legal aid, consumer groups, and other government agencies to raise awareness about consumer rights and consumer law. This article discusses some of these initiatives, including actions taken to protect Indigenous consumers from unlawful and unfair business conduct.
How Will the Enforcement of Section 46 of the CCA Change under the Full Harper? – Sophie Matthiesson
The Federal Government proposes to adopt the recommendations of the Harper Review to remove the “taking advantage of” requirement and to introduce an “effects test” into the prohibition on misuse of market power. The proposed reform is colloquially known as “the Full Harper”. This article examines the current law and the proposed changes in light of the experience in the European Union with an effects-based approach to the prohibition on the abuse of a dominant position. It argues that, while the Full Harper will potentially capture a far broader range of conduct than the current prohibition, Australian courts are likely to draw on existing principles when assessing whether there has been a contravention, as well as the principles established in other jurisdictions, such as the European Union.
- Rusty Cars, Warped Blinds and Dodgy Sofas Make for Uncomfortable Lives – T H J Cadd
- ACCC v Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi SRL (No 12) – Peta Stevenson and Aarthi Sridharan
- The Entry and Premature Exit of a “Competitor”: Should We Be Concerned – Hank Spier
- Orders Published by the Competition Commission of India in 2016 – Swati Sharma and Abhilasha Nautiyal
- An update on relevant issues and developments in Mexico, Colombia, Uruguay, Honduras, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Guatemala and Paraguay – Luis Omar Guerrero Rodríguez, Luis Eduardo Nieto, Juan Mercant, Emilia Cadenas, Claribel Medina, Martin F Michaus and Marianne Windirsch
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: AJCCL Vol 24 No 4 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: email@example.com.