Abstract
This comment, through comparing two representative extra-territorial antitrust cases in the US and Japan, shows that, in the age of global supply-chains, competition agencies’ enforcement on conduct overseas (based on the effect doctrine) needs to receive proper limitation. Each competition agency needs to limit its law enforcement to cases conducted overseas, which have direct (and substantial effect) on consumers of the agency’s home country. Regarding this “direct” effect, price-fixing of components conducted in foreign countries would normally be interpreted as lacking in direct effect on home countries to which finished products are exported. Moreover, competition agencies of MNEs’ home countries would normally be advised to refrain from extending protection under the competition law to the MNEs’ foreign subsidiaries since the subsidiaries are entitled to seek protection under the competition laws of respective foreign countries where they are incorporated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
15 U.S. Code § 6a.
- 2.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155, 164 (2004).
- 3.
Substantial and reasonably foreseeable effect will be almost always identified when direct effect takes place.
- 4.
Brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission as Amici Curiae in Support of Panel Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc (April 24, 2014).
- 5.
Id. at 18 (9)–19 (10).
- 6.
Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium, Inc., 683 F.3d 845, 858–59 (7th Cir. 2012).
- 7.
Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 775 F.3d 816 (2014) (7th Cir. 2014) (November 26, 2014; Amended, January 12, 2015).
- 8.
Id.
- 9.
Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 746 F.3d 842 (7th Cir. 2014) (March 27, 2014).
- 10.
Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 775 F.3d 816 (2014) (7th Cir. 2014) (November 26, 2014; Amended, January 12, 2015).
- 11.
Citing Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium, Inc., 683 F.3d at 860.
- 12.
Id.
- 13.
Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 775 F.3d 816 (2014) (7th Cir. 2014).
- 14.
Supreme Court, June 15, 2015, available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061515zor_32q3.pdf (accessed November 9, 2015).
- 15.
Regarding basically the same facts of this 7th Circuit decision, the 9th Circuit judged on the criminal prosecution (which cover sales to not only Motorola but also Dell, Hewlett Packard, Apple and other US information technology companies) by the DOJ, sustaining the DOJ’s prosecution – United States v. Hui Hsiung, 758 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2014). The 7th Circuit (Judge Posner) and the 9th Circuit decisions are not contradictory, since both decisions admit existence of either import trade (in case of the 9th Circuit decision) or direct effect to the United States for at least a part of the entire trade. Supreme Court denied Certiorari for both the 7th Circuit and the 9th Circuit decisions: supra note 14.
- 16.
JFTC Press Release on Rio Tinto/ BHP Billiton (October 18, 2010), Japanese version available at http://www.jftc.go.jp/houdou/pressrelease/h22/oct/10101802.html (accessed December 21, 2014).
- 17.
JFTC Remedy order, Marine horse (February 20, 2008), 54 Shinketsushu 512.
- 18.
JFTC Remedy order, CRT manufacturers (October 7, 2009), 56 (2) Shinketsushu 71. Samsung SDI and MT Display, in 2010, appealed the JFTC remedy order (and fine-imposition order) to the JFTC Hearing, which led to JFTC Hearing Decision (2015), followed by Tokyo High Court Decision (2016).
- 19.
56 (2) Shinketsushu 71, at 74.
- 20.
Id. at 73.
- 21.
56 (2) Shinketsushu 175.
- 22.
JFTC Hearing Decision of CRT Cartel Case (May 29, 2015), Japanese version only available at http://www.jftc.go.jp/houdou/pressrelease/h27/may/150529.html (accessed August 23, 2015).
- 23.
Id.
- 24.
JFTC fine-imposition order against MT Picture Display Indonesia Co. et al. (October 7, 2009), 56 (2) Shnketsushu 173.
- 25.
Id.
- 26.
See Ochi (2012), p. 53 (Commenting that a subsidiary’s profit loss leads to loss for its parent company, and thus the competition agency may be deemed to have jurisdiction over the parent/subsidiary group.).
- 27.
Supra note 22.
- 28.
Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 775F.3d 816, 822 (2014) (7th Cir. 2014).
References
Bellis, Jean-François. (2016). The iron ore production joint venture between Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton: The European angle of a multinational antitrust review. In M. Matsuhista, & T. Schoenbaum (Eds.), Emerging issues in sustainable development: International trade law and policy relating to natural resources, energy and the environment. New York: Springer.
Ochi, Y. (2012). Chapter 2: From extra-territorial application to international enforcement. In K. Tsuchida (Ed.), Dokusennkinshiho No Kokusaiteki Shikko (International Enforcement of the Antimonopoly Act, pp. 33–56). Tokyo: Nippon Hyoron Co.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Japan
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Takigawa, T. (2016). Putting Limits on Extra-Territorial Coverage of Competition Laws in the Age of Global Supply Chains: Comparison of the US and Japan. In: Matsushita, M., Schoenbaum, T. (eds) Emerging Issues in Sustainable Development. Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-56426-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-56426-3_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Tokyo
Print ISBN: 978-4-431-56424-9
Online ISBN: 978-4-431-56426-3
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)