Global Competition Law is primarly a practitioner's guide presenting the most salient aspects of the major competition laws country by country, giving an overview of their structure and most charasteristic elements.
Global Competition Law also provides insight into possible future developments in the field.

Global Competition Law

  When the Sherman Act was adopted in 1890, at least twenty-six States in the US already had some type of antitrust prohibition in place. Fundamental concepts of Federal antitrust law, such as the rule against per se price-fixing, originated in principles developed by State courts enforcing State antitrust laws. …

Context

  When the Sherman Act was adopted in 1890, at least twenty-six States in the US already had some type of antitrust prohibition in place. Fundamental concepts of Federal antitrust law, such as the rule against per se price-fixing, originated in principles developed by State courts enforcing State antitrust laws.

   The Commerce Clause grants power to the Federal Government to regulate commerce between States and thereby acts as a limit on the States' power to do so. In determining whether a state has violated the Commerce Clause in enacting a State antitrust statute, courts ask whether a legitimate local purpose exists and whether the statute rationally serves that purpose. The court then balances the importance of the local interest against the burden on interstate commerce, asking whether the interest could be promoted by a statute with a lesser impact.

  Where a State statute discriminates against interstate commerce, or its effect is simply to favor local economic interests, it will be invalid. Even where a State law does not appear to violate the Commerce Clause prohibition on state Regulation of interstate commerce, some applications of state antitrust laws to interstate commercial activity may not be permissible.

The Commerce Clause

    The Supremacy Clause provides that the US Constitution and Federal laws are “the supreme Law of the land,” and that State courts are bound thereby notwithstanding any contrary State statute. Federal laws preempt state laws in three circumstances: where Congress expressly preempts state law; where Congress manifests an intent to “occupy the field” being regulated; and, in case of actual conflict between Federal and State law. State antitrust laws are not generally preempted by Federal laws, particularly given the legislative history of the Sherman Act indicating that the Federal statute was intended to “supplement” state law. Thus, while a State law cannot authorize a practice that is prohibited under Federal law, it may be able to impose prohibitions beyond those for which a Federal remedy has been created.

  State antitrust law largely parallels federal law and states give varying degrees of deference to federal law interpretations. Nevertheless, some differences remain, such as a different approach to the “relevant market” definition, set forth in the states' 1993 NAAG (National Association of Attorneys General) Merger Guidelines.

  State courts lack jurisdiction to hear claims pursuant to Federal antitrust law. On the other hand, Federal courts may sometimes hear a State antitrust claim where there exists a basis for Federal jurisdiction and the state claim is based on substantially the same conduct. If the Federal claim is dismissed, thereby depriving the plaintiff of the basis for Federal court jurisdiction, the State claim is likely to be dismissed as well.

Global Competition Law

1497. Context

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les notions juridiques connexes

1497. Context

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise