IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/revind/v54y2019i2d10.1007_s11151-018-9651-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Legal Treatment of Abuse of Dominance in Indian Competition Law: Adopting an Effects-Based Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Payal Malik

    (Competition Commission of India
    University of Delhi)

  • Neha Malhotra

    (Nathan Economic Consulting India Private Limited)

  • Ramji Tamarappoo

    (Nathan Economic Consulting India Private Limited
    Nathan Associates Inc.)

  • Nisha Kaur Uberoi

    (Competition Law Practice, Trilegal)

Abstract

Abuse of dominance investigations around the world are often form-based, primarily centred on the pre-requisite of dominance. This may lead to false positives or restrict innovation in today’s dynamic and complex markets. Accordingly, abuse of dominance enforcement requires a shift towards adopting an effects-based approach, weighing pro and anticompetitive effects and considering efficiency justifications. The European Union is increasingly moving in this direction, as is demonstrated by its case law that is analysed in this paper. The paper also explores competition law in India—traditionally a form-based jurisdiction for abuse of dominance investigations—and finds an encouraging trend towards an effects-based approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Payal Malik & Neha Malhotra & Ramji Tamarappoo & Nisha Kaur Uberoi, 2019. "Legal Treatment of Abuse of Dominance in Indian Competition Law: Adopting an Effects-Based Approach," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 54(2), pages 435-464, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:revind:v:54:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11151-018-9651-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11151-018-9651-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11151-018-9651-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11151-018-9651-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. E. Glen Weyl, 2010. "A Price Theory of Multi-sided Platforms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1642-1672, September.
    2. Flavio Felice & Massimiliano Vatiero, 2015. "Ordo and European Competition Law," Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, in: A Research Annual, volume 32, pages 147-157, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    3. Behrens, Peter, 2015. "The ordoliberal concept of "abuse" of a dominant position and its impact on Article 102 TFEU," Discussion Papers 7/15, Europa-Kolleg Hamburg, Institute for European Integration.
    4. Gual, Jordi & Hellwig, Martin F. & Perrot, Anne & Polo, Michele & Rey, Patrick & Schmidt, Klaus M. & Stenbacka, Rune, 2005. "An Economic Approach to Article 82," Discussion Papers in Economics 745, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    5. Frédéric Marty, 2014. "Towards an Economics of Convention-based Approach of the European Competition Policy," GREDEG Working Papers 2014-06, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    6. Alberto Pera, 2008. "Changing Views of Competition and EC Antitrust Law," Working Papers 13-2008, Macerata University, Department of Studies on Economic Development (DiSSE), revised Nov 2008.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yannis Katsoulacos & Svetlana Avdasheva & Svetlana Golovanova, 2021. "Determinants of the (Slow) Development of Effect-Based Competition Enforcement: Testing the Impact of Judicial Review on the Choice of Legal Standards by Competition Authorities," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 103-122, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martin Peitz & Sven Rady & Piers Trepper, 2017. "Experimentation in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 128-172.
    2. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    3. Lam, W., 2015. "Switching Costs in Two-sided Markets," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2015024, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    4. Lapo Filistrucchi & Tobias J. Klein, 2013. "Price Competition in Two-Sided Markets with Heterogeneous Consumers and Network Effects," Working Papers 13-20, NET Institute.
    5. Moraga-Gonzalez, Jose L. & Wildenbeest, Matthijs R., 2011. "Comparison sites," IESE Research Papers D/933, IESE Business School.
      • Jose Luis Moraga-Gonzalez & Matthijs R. Wildenbeest, 2011. "Comparison Sites," Working Papers 2011-04, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    6. Christopher Müller & Enrico Böhme, 2014. "The Monopoly Benchmark on Two-Sided Markets," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 56-69, Autumn.
    7. Valentiny, Pál, 2019. "Közgazdaságtan a jogalkalmazásban [Forensic economics]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(2), pages 134-162.
    8. Veiga, André, 2018. "A note on how to sell a network good," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 114-126.
    9. Nora, Vladyslav & Winter, Eyal, 2024. "Exploiting social influence in networks," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 19(1), January.
    10. Francis Bloch & Gabrielle Demange, 2021. "Profit-splitting rules and the taxation of multinational digital platforms," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 28(4), pages 855-889, August.
    11. Zhu Wang, 2012. "Debit card interchange fee regulation: some assessments and considerations," Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, vol. 98(3Q), pages 159-182.
    12. Creti, Anna & Verdier, Marianne, 2014. "Fraud, investments and liability regimes in payment platforms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 84-93.
    13. Filistrucchi, L. & Antonielli, M., 2012. "Collusion and the Political Differentiation of Newspapers," Other publications TiSEM 3ec21c1b-a4d8-4a31-a5fc-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Mark J. Tremblay, 2019. "Platform Competition and Endogenous Switching Costs," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 537-559, December.
    15. Jin Li & Gary Pisano & Yejia Xu & Feng Zhu, 2023. "Marketplace Scalability and Strategic Use of Platform Investment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 3958-3975, July.
    16. Doh-Shin Jeon & Nikrooz Nasr, 2016. "News Aggregators and Competition among Newspapers on the Internet," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 91-114, November.
    17. Lukas Stricker & Joël Wagner & Angela Zeier Röschmann, 2023. "The Future of Insurance Intermediation in the Age of the Digital Platform Economy," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-32, August.
    18. Tommy Staahl Gabrielsen & Bjørn Olav Johansen & Teis Lunde Lømo, 2018. "Resale Price Maintenance In Two‐Sided Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 570-609, September.
    19. Giovanni Immordino & Marco Pagano & Michele Polo, 2006. "Norm Flexibility and Private Initiative," Working Papers 314, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    20. repec:hal:cesptp:hal-00980363 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Ivaldi, Marc & Sokullu, Senay & Toru, Tuba, 2015. "Airport Prices in a Two-Sided Market Setting: Major US Airports," CEPR Discussion Papers 10658, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:revind:v:54:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11151-018-9651-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.