IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v20y2024i1-2p137-154..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conditional Rebates and Intel: A Step Backwards by any Standard?

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Cole

Abstract

This paper considers the law on conditional rebates. It sets out the changes introduced by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Intel decision and how these have been applied in the General Court Intel Renv case. It is explained that the changes are part of a broader move to bring EU competition law in line with a Consumer Welfare Standard (CWS). An analysis of the new test then reveals that it is flawed for five reasons: the new test ignores the fact that low prices and exclusion are separable. The test incorporates the As-Efficient Competitor test, which only protects firms with low costs, not those that are more competitive as a whole. The test introduces a new standard of harm, which means that the law no longer prevents the restriction of competition, but rather prevents making it impossible for a firm with the same costs as the dominant undertaking to compete, which is a different standard. The new standard diminishes the deterrent effect of the law. Finally, compared with the original test, the CJEU test fails to maximize consumer surplus (despite that being the aim of the CWS). Therefore, there is no reason to retain the test and it is recommended that it is reversed.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Cole, 2024. "Conditional Rebates and Intel: A Step Backwards by any Standard?," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(1-2), pages 137-154.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:20:y:2024:i:1-2:p:137-154.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhae005
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:jcomle:v:20:y:2024:i:1-2:p:137-154.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    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.