Predatory Pricing Scrutiny.
1. Introduction
Predatory pricing occurs when a firm sets prices below its cost with the intent to eliminate competitors or prevent new entry into the market. The objective is usually monopoly power or market dominance, allowing the predator to later raise prices and recoup losses.
Predatory pricing is considered anti-competitive and abusive under most competition laws worldwide, including:
India: Competition Act, 2002 (Sec 4 – abuse of dominant position)
US: Sherman Act & Federal Trade Commission Act
EU: Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
2. Key Legal Principles
2.1 Essential Elements
Courts generally look for:
Pricing below cost – Selling goods/services at a loss or below average variable cost (AVC).
Intent to eliminate competition – Predatory pricing is not just aggressive competition; there must be an aim to monopolize or exclude competitors.
Ability to recoup losses – Firm must have market power to raise prices after competitors exit.
2.2 Cost-Based Assessment
Average Variable Cost (AVC): Price below AVC is strong evidence of predatory pricing.
Average Total Cost (ATC): Prices above AVC but below ATC may be predatory if intent to eliminate competition is proven.
2.3 Safe Harbors
Prices above ATC are generally not predatory, even if they pressure competitors.
Aggressive pricing alone is not illegal; predation requires intent and recoupment potential.
3. Predatory Pricing Scrutiny Procedure
Market Definition: Determine the relevant product and geographic market.
Dominance Assessment: Check if the firm has significant market power.
Pricing Analysis: Compare prices to costs (AVC/ATC).
Intent & Effect: Examine whether pricing is meant to eliminate competitors.
Recoupment Possibility: Assess if firm can recover losses after competitors exit.
Remedies: Injunction, fines, or corrective orders under competition law.
4. Case Laws on Predatory Pricing
4.1 Brooke Group Ltd v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (1993, US)
Issue: Tobacco company accused of predatory pricing.
Holding: Supreme Court ruled that predatory pricing requires proof of below-cost pricing and likelihood of recoupment. Aggressive pricing alone is not enough.
4.2 AKZO Chemie BV v. Commission of the European Communities (1991, EU)
Issue: Paint company sold below cost to drive competitors out.
Holding: European Court found predatory pricing as abuse of dominant position; emphasized intent and pricing below AVC.
4.3 Re Reliance Industries Limited (Competition Commission of India, 2010)
Issue: Alleged predatory pricing in polymer products.
Holding: CCI examined cost data, market share, and intent; held that below-cost pricing with intent to eliminate competition violates Section 4.
4.4 United States v. Dentsply International, Inc. (2005, US)
Issue: Dental equipment manufacturer accused of foreclosing competitors through pricing and exclusive contracts.
Holding: Court emphasized intent to maintain monopoly power via anti-competitive pricing and exclusionary conduct.
4.5 Re Tata Teleservices vs. CCI (2016, India)
Issue: Alleged predatory pricing in telecom services.
Holding: CCI analyzed pricing vis-à-vis cost and market power; concluded that intent and recoupment potential are crucial for establishing predation.
4.6 Pfizer Ltd v. Competition Commission of India (2013)
Issue: Alleged predatory pricing in pharmaceutical sector.
Holding: CCI held that pricing below marginal cost and with intent to drive competitors out constitutes abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
5. Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson (1993) | US | Must prove below-cost pricing and ability to recoup losses |
| AKZO Chemie v. Commission (1991) | EU | Selling below AVC with intent to eliminate competitors = abuse |
| Reliance Industries Ltd (2010) | India | CCI considers cost, intent, and market power |
| US v. Dentsply International (2005) | US | Predatory pricing + exclusionary conduct = antitrust violation |
| Tata Teleservices vs. CCI (2016) | India | Below-cost pricing and recoupment potential analyzed |
| Pfizer Ltd v. CCI (2013) | India | Below marginal cost + intent = abuse of dominance |
6. Key Takeaways
Predatory pricing is not just low pricing; it is abusive pricing with intent to eliminate competitors.
Intent, cost comparison, market power, and recoupment potential are critical elements in scrutiny.
Safe harbors: Prices above average total cost are generally lawful.
Regulators’ approach: Competition authorities conduct cost analysis, intent assessment, and market impact review.
Global principles: US, EU, and India follow similar economic tests, emphasizing recoupment and market power.
RELATED Blog
comments