AntitrustWorldWiki - User contributions [en]

South Korea (December 31, 2004)

2009-04-21T22:51:21Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 25'''

''Governed by:'' Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act of 1980, with amendments.<ref>Korea Free Trade Commission website, http://ftc.go.kr/data/hwp/(1)mrfta.doc</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Article 2-2 extends scope overseas

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Article 22 imposes fines for violations of Article 19.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 1
| Article 66(1) allows the Commission to impose imprisonment for violations of Article 3-2.

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Article 21 states that the Fair Trade Commission may order an enterpriser to discontinue an act, publicly announce the fact of receiving corrective order, or take other corrective measures.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Article 49(2) says that any person who deems that a violation of the Act has occurred may report it.

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 1
| Article 56 says that an enterprise that violates the Act can be liable for damages to those who were injured by the violation.

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Article 12(1) requires notification of mergers.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 0
|

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 1
| Article 12(6) says that notification must occur within 30 days of the merger.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| Article 7(4)(1)(a) considers dominance

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Article 7 bans mergers that have negative effects on competition.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 1
| Article 7(2) exempts mergers that promote efficiency enough to make up for the negative effects on competition.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Article 3-2(2) prohibits unreasonably controlling the buying and selling of goods on the market.

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 3-2 prohibits the abuse of a dominant position.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Article 3-2(1) prohibits price setting.

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Article 23(1)(1) prohibits discriminatory transactions

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 1
| Article 29 prohibits RPM.

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 1
| Article 3-2(4) prohibits acts unreasonably impeding the participation of new competitors.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 19(1)(1) prohibits price fixing.

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Article 3-2(2), 3-2(5) prohibit tying.

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Article 19(1)(4) prohibits market division.

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 19(1)(3) prohibits output restraint.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| Article 19(1)(8) prohibits market sharing

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| Article 23(1)(2) prohibits acts designed to unfairly exclude competitors.

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| Article 19(1)(8) prohibits collusive tendering

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 1
| Article 23(1)(1) prohibits agreements meant to refuse transactions with a certain enterprise.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 19(2) allows certain unfair practices for purposes of economic development and industrial rationalization.

|}

== References ==
<references />

Kazakhstan (January 19, 2001)

2009-04-21T22:19:44Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 22'''

''Governed by:'' Law No. 144 of 19 January 2001 of the Republic of Kazakhstan Concerning Competition and Restriction of Monopolistic Activities.
<ref>Translated Act on Global Competition Forum website: http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/asia/Kazakhstan/Kazaki%20Com.pdf</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Article 2 extends the scope to all entities affecting competition in Kazakhstan.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Article 21 gives the antimonopoly body the right to impose fines.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Article 12 gives the antimonopoly body the right to reorganize a monopolistic company.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Article 21 says that sometimes heads of other market entities can be requires to stop violations.

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 1
| Article 21 says that other market entities can recover damages.

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Article 17 says that the antimonopoly body requires prior notification of any acquisition of 35% or more of another company.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
|

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| Article 17 allows the antimonopoly body to disallow a merger if it strengthens a dominant position.

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Article 17 says that the merger can be deemed invalid if it would have a significant impact on competition.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Article 16(4) prohibits restricting access to goods to drive up prices.

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 16(4) lists several things that are considered abusive acts.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Article 16(4) prohibits price setting (low and high)

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Article 16(4) prohibits discriminatory pricing/conditions.

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 1
| Article 16(4) prohibits the restriction of entry to the commodity market.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 14(6) prohibits price fixing.

|-
|
| Tying
| 0
|

|-
|
| Market Division
| 0
|

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 14 prohibits agreements to restrict production.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| Article 14(1)(3) prohibits market sharing.

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| Article 14(4) prohibits acts that eliminate competitors and restrict market access.

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| Article 14(7) prohibits collusive tendering.

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 1
| Article 14(5) prohibits group boycotts.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|}

== References ==
<references />

Singapore (July 1, 2007)

2009-04-21T22:04:37Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 14'''

''Governed by:'' No. 46 Competition Act of 2004<ref>Enacted January 1, 2005, but relevant substantive provisions weren’t enacted until January 1, 2006, and merger prohibitions will not come into affect until July 1, 2007; see: http://www.ccs.gov.sg/Legislation/CompetitionAct/index.html</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).<ref>http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_legdisp.pl?actno=2004-ACT-46-N&doctitle=COMPETITION%20ACT%202004%0A&date=latest&method=part</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Section 33 states that the Competition Act’s prohibitions extend to agreements and activity made outside the country.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Section 83 provides for a general penalty of up to $10,000, though other provisions specify higher amounts

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 1
| Section 83 allows imprisonment for 12 months

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Section 69(2) allows divestiture of improper mergers.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 0
|

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 1
| Section 86 gives any person affected by anti-competitive actions a right of action for relief in civil proceedings

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 1
| Section 71(1) gives any party affected by a Commission ruling the right to appeal.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 0
|

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 0
|

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Section 54 prohibits mergers that have the effect of lessening competition

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 1
| Section 58(3) enables commission to allow otherwise impermissible merger on public interest grounds.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Section 47(2)(b) prohibits limiting production

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Section 47 prohibits abusive acts by dominant firm

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 0
|

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Section 47(2)(c) prohibits price discrimination

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Section 1 of the Third Schedule states that Section 47 prohibitions do not apply to “any undertaking entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest”

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Section 34(2)(a) prohibits price fixing.

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Section 34(2)(c) prohibits tying.

|-
|
| Market Division
| 0
|

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Section 34(2)(b) prohibits the limit or control of production

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| Section 34(2)(c) prohibits market sharing

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 0
|

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 0
|

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Section 41 allows for “block exemptions” of agreements that improve production or development and that promote economic or technical progress; Also, Section 9 of the Third Schedule states that “Section 34 prohibition shall not apply to any agreement which contributes to improving production or distribution; or promoting technical or economic progress”

|}

== References ==
<references />

Japan 2005

2009-04-21T22:03:24Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 16'''

''Governed by:'' Act Concerning Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade: Law No. 54 of 1947 (as amended in 2005) (hereinafter referred to as “Fair Trade Act”)
<ref>A comprehensive listing of relevant statutes can be found at: http://www.jftc.go.jp/e-page/legislation/index.html</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| §89 allows the Commission to impose fines for violations of the FTA.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 1
| §89 allows the Commission to impose imprisonment for violations of the FTA.

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| §7(1) of the FTA allows the Commission to divide up private monopolies.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| §45 says that any person can report a violation to the Commission and ask for appropriate measures to be taken.

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 1
| §24 gives injured 3rd parties the right to demand a suspension of the infringements of the FTA and collect damages after the conclusion of the hearing.

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| §15(2) requires pre merger notification for all proposed mergers.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
| §15(2) requires pre merger notification for all proposed mergers.

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| §9 prohibits any merger that may cause an excessive concentration of economic power.

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| §15(1) prohibits mergers that have the effect of substantially restraining competition.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 0
|

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| §2(9) lists unjustly using one’s position as an unfair trade practice.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| §2(9) lists price setting as an unfair trade practice.

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| §2(9) lists discriminatory pricing as an unfair trade practice.

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| §2(6) lists price fixing as an unreasonable restraint of trade.

|-
|
| Tying
| 0
|

|-
|
| Market Division
| 0
|

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| §2(6) lists output restraint in its definition of unreasonable restraints of trade.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 0
|

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 0
|

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 0
|

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|}

== References ==
<references />

Morocco (June 5, 2000)

2009-04-05T00:07:35Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 17'''

''Governed by:'' Dahir no. 1-00-225 of 2 rabil I 1421 Promulgating Law No. 06-99, Concerning Freedom of Prices and Competition, 6 July 2000 (herein referred to as "Competition Act").<ref>http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:20973121~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Article 1 extends the scope to all individuals or corporations, with or without their central office located in Morocco, whose operations or conduct have an effect on competition in the Moroccan market or a substantial part thereof.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Article 67 provides fines for violations of articles 6 and 7.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 1
| Article 68 allows imprisonment for sellers who use any fraudulent means to cause or attempt to cause the artificial raising or lowering of prices of goods of services, publicly or privately.

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Article 32 allows the Prime Minister to require measures that may include the suspension of a practice concerned, as well as an injunction against the parties to return to their previous operating state.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Article 9 provides that the process for nullifying an agreement can be invoked by the parties involved and by third parties.

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 0
|

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Article 12 states that companies are obligated to notify the Prime Minister of any concentration project that meets certain conditions.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
| Article 12 states that firms may not implement their concentration until they've notified the Authority.

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Article 10 states that any concentration that may restrict competition is subject by the Authority.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Article 7 prohibits preventing access to a market by a company or one of its products.

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 7(1) prohibits abusive exploitation by a dominant firm.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 0
|

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 0
|

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 1
| Article 7 prohibits directly or indirectly imposing a minimum amount on the resale of a product.

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 8(2) allows an efficiency defense where the firm can prove that their actions are meant to contribute to economic progress and that these contributions are sufficient to compensate for the restrictions they impose on competitiveness.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 6(2) prohibits agreements that stand in the way of the setting of prices by free operation of the market by artificially favoring their raising or lowering.

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Article 7 prohibits sales linked to or subject to discriminatory conditions of sale.

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Article 6(4) prohibits agreements that divide markets or suppliers.

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 6(3) prohibits agreements limiting or controlling production, unblocking, investments, or technical progress.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 0
|

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 0
|

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 0
|

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 8(2) allows an efficiency defense where the firm can prove that their actions are meant to contribute to economic progress and that these contributions are sufficient to compensate for the restrictions they impose on competitiveness.

|}

== References ==
<references />

Jordan 2004

2009-04-04T23:59:07Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 23'''

''Governed by:'' The Competition Law of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Law”).
<ref>http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/archive0611/mergerjordanlaw.pdf</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Article 3 extends the scope of the Law to all activities that have an effect in Jordan.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Articles 20-26 allows the Minister to impose fines for violations of the Law.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Article 17 allows for 3rd party initiation of proceedings.

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 0
|

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 1
| Article 17 allows affected 3rd parties to be parties to the case.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Article 10 requires merging companies to submit an application for the approval of the proposed merger.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
| The approval must come before the merger can occur.

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| Articles 9(B) and 10(A) both consider whether the firm's market share is substantial.

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Article 11 allows the Minister to deny a merger application if it negatively impacts competition.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 1
| Article (11)(A)(1).

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 1
| Article 11(A)(1) says the minister can allow an otherwise impermissible merger which has positive economic benefits such as lowering prices or providing employment.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Article 6(E) and (F) prohibit various methods of limiting access to the market such as supply refusal and control over purchasing.

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 6 prohibits the abuse of a dominant position.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Article 6(A) prohibits price setting.

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Article 6(C) prohibits price discrimination.

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 1
| Article 8 prohibits resale price maintenance.

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 1
| Article 6(B) prohibits activities that lead to barriers to entry.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 7(B) and (C).

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 5(A)(1) prohibits price fixing.

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Article 6(G) prohibits tying.

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Article 5(A)(3) prohibits market division.

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 5(A)(2) prohibits output restraint.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| Article 5(A)(3) prohibits market sharing.

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| Article 5(A)(4) prohibits agreements to eliminate other enterprises.

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| Article 5(A)(5) prohibits collusive tendering.

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 7(B) and (C).

|}

== References ==
<references />

Iran

2009-04-04T23:58:41Z

Kajrozga:

The Third Socio-Economic and Cultural Development Plan of The Islamic Republic of Iran 2000-2004: Regulation of Monopolies and Promotion of Competition in Economic Activities only regulates specific industries (e.g. the government is given authority to regulate firms processing green tea).<ref>http://www.irtp.com/laws/3socio-economic/06.htm</ref>

== References ==
<references />

Algeria (January 25, 1995)

2009-04-04T23:57:10Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 15'''

''Governed by:'' Ordinance No. 95-06 of 25 January 1995 on Competition<ref>Taken from excerpts on Algeria’s Competition Law in a report for the United Nations Conference on Trade and development of 24 November 1997, available at, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2emd11.pdf</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| The commission is allowed to impose monetary penalties.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 0
|

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 0
|

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Article 11 requires pre-merger notification.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
| Article 11 requires pre-merger notification.

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| The commission also looks at whether the concentration will create a dominant position,

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| The commission looks at the effects on competition when assessing a merger.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 1
| The commission also weighs the positive effects of the concentration against the negative.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Article 7 prohibits limiting consumer’s access to products.

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 7 prohibits the abuse of market power.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 0
|

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Article 7 prohibits discriminatory pricing and selling conditions.

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 1
| Article 7 prohibits RPM.

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 6 prohibits price fixing agreements.

|-
|
| Tying
| 0
|

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Article 6 prohibits market division.

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 6 prohibits limiting production.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 0
|

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| Article 6 prohibits agreements that limit the lawful exercise of commercial activities by another producer.

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 0
|

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|}

== References ==
<references />

Bulgaria

2009-03-26T21:13:10Z

Kajrozga:

<h1 style="margin:0; font-size:155%;text-align:left; color:#666; padding:0.2em 0.2em;">National Law</h1>
:*[[Bulgaria 2008|2008 Competition Act]]<ref>Enacted 02 December 2008, english text unavailable</ref>
:*[[Bulgaria 2003|Law on Competition Protection of 1998, last amended by SC no. 107/2003]]
:*[[Bulgaria 1998|Law on Competition Protection of 1998]]

<h1 style="margin:0; font-size:155%;text-align:left; color:#666; padding:0.2em 0.2em;">EU law</h1>
:* [[Bulgaria/EU, 2005]]<ref>As a member of the EU, Bulgaria is obliged to apply EU competition law in some circumstances, but not when anticompetitive practices and effects are limited to the Bulgarian market. This coding represents how Bulgarian authorities would apply EU Law in the national courts.</ref>

<h2 style="margin:0; font-size:140%;text-align:left; color:#666; padding:0.2em 0.2em;">References</h2>
<references />

Greece (August 2, 2006)

2009-03-26T20:59:56Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 19'''

''Governed by:'' Act on the Control of Monopolies and Oligopolies and the Protection of Free Competition of 26 September 1977 (no. 703/1977), as last amended in 2 August 2006 (Law no. 3373/2005) (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).<ref>The actual text of the 2005 amendments was not available in english (Greek version available at http://www.esee.gr/). The coding here is kept the same as under the 2000 amendments, except for changes explicitly mentioned in secondary sources.</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Article 32 says that the Act applies to anything that has

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Article 29 allows the Commission to impose large fines for violations.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| The 2005 amendments permit the competition authority to impose "structural remedies."<ref> See http://www.lambadarioslaw.gr/downloads/en/european_antitrust_review_2007.pdf, at 132-133.</ref>

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Article 24(1) says that every individual or legal entity has the right to file a complaint to initiate an investigation.

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 0
|

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 1
| According to Greek civil law 3rd parties have the right to intervene in Commission proceedings either for or against the defendant.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Article 4b(2) requires pre-merger notification.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
|
|

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 1
| Article 4b(2) allows post-merger notification.<ref>This was a key change from the 2000 amendment. See http://www.lambadarioslaw.gr/downloads/en/european_antitrust_review_2007.pdf, at 131-132.</ref>

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| Article 4c(1) says that the Commission can ban any merger that is expected to create or strengthen a dominant position.

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Article 4c(1) says that the Commission can ban any merger that is expected to significantly impede competition.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 1
| Article 4c(3) allows an otherwise impermissible merger if it is to the consumers’ advantage.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 1
| Article 4c(3) allows the Commission to permit an otherwise illegal merger if it will advantage the national economy.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Article 2(1)(b) prohibits limiting production and markets.

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 2 prohibits abuse by a dominant undertaking.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Article 2(1)(a) prohibits price setting.

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Article 2(1)(c) prohibits discriminatory pricing.

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 1
| RPM has been interpreted as illegal under Article 1(1)(a).<ref>See Competition Commission Decisions 133/94 Bakers Corporation of Korinth; 134/94 Greek Federation of Bakers; 135/94 Bakers Union of Theva</ref>

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 1(1)(a) prohibits price fixing.

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Article 1(1)(e) prohibits tying arrangements.

|-
|
| Market Division
| 0
|

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 1(1)(b) prohibits limiting production and markets.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| Article 1(1)(c) prohibits market sharing.

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 0
|

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 0
|

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 1(3)(a) exempts from the Article 1 prohibitions agreements that contribute to improving production or distribution or promote economic progress.

|}

== References ==
<references />

Greece (August 2, 2006)

2009-03-26T20:57:08Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 18'''

''Governed by:'' Act on the Control of Monopolies and Oligopolies and the Protection of Free Competition of 26 September 1977 (no. 703/1977), as last amended in 2 August 2006 (Law no. 3373/2005) (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).<ref>The actual text of the 2005 amendments was not available in english (Greek version available at http://www.esee.gr/). The coding here is kept the same as under the 2000 amendments, except for changes explicitly mentioned in secondary sources.</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Article 32 says that the Act applies to anything that has

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Article 29 allows the Commission to impose large fines for violations.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Article 24(1) says that every individual or legal entity has the right to file a complaint to initiate an investigation.

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 0
|

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 1
| According to Greek civil law 3rd parties have the right to intervene in Commission proceedings either for or against the defendant.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Article 4b(2) requires pre-merger notification.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
|
|

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 1
| Article 4b(2) allows post-merger notification.<ref>This was a key change from the 2000 amendment. See http://www.lambadarioslaw.gr/downloads/en/european_antitrust_review_2007.pdf, at 131-132.</ref>

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| Article 4c(1) says that the Commission can ban any merger that is expected to create or strengthen a dominant position.

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Article 4c(1) says that the Commission can ban any merger that is expected to significantly impede competition.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 1
| Article 4c(3) allows an otherwise impermissible merger if it is to the consumers’ advantage.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 1
| Article 4c(3) allows the Commission to permit an otherwise illegal merger if it will advantage the national economy.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Article 2(1)(b) prohibits limiting production and markets.

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 2 prohibits abuse by a dominant undertaking.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Article 2(1)(a) prohibits price setting.

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Article 2(1)(c) prohibits discriminatory pricing.

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 1
| RPM has been interpreted as illegal under Article 1(1)(a).<ref>See Competition Commission Decisions 133/94 Bakers Corporation of Korinth; 134/94 Greek Federation of Bakers; 135/94 Bakers Union of Theva</ref>

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 1(1)(a) prohibits price fixing.

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Article 1(1)(e) prohibits tying arrangements.

|-
|
| Market Division
| 0
|

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 1(1)(b) prohibits limiting production and markets.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| Article 1(1)(c) prohibits market sharing.

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 0
|

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 0
|

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 1(3)(a) exempts from the Article 1 prohibitions agreements that contribute to improving production or distribution or promote economic progress.

|}

== References ==
<references />

Greece (August 2, 2006)

2009-03-26T20:55:58Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 18'''

''Governed by:'' Act on the Control of Monopolies and Oligopolies and the Protection of Free Competition of 26 September 1977 (no. 703/1977), as last amended in 2 August 2006 (Law no. 3373/2005) (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).<ref>The actual text of the 2005 amendments was not available in english (Greek version available at http://www.esee.gr/). The coding here is kept the same as under the 2000 amendments, except for changes explicitly mentioned in secondary sources.</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Article 32 says that the Act applies to anything that has

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Article 29 allows the Commission to impose large fines for violations.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Article 24(1) says that every individual or legal entity has the right to file a complaint to initiate an investigation.

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 0
|

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 1
| According to Greek civil law 3rd parties have the right to intervene in Commission proceedings either for or against the defendant.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Article 4b(2) requires pre-merger notification.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
|
|

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 1
| Article 4b(2) allows post-merger notification.<ref>This was a key change from the 2000 amendment. See http://www.lambadarioslaw.gr/downloads/en/european_antitrust_review_2007.pdf, at 131-132.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| Article 4c(1) says that the Commission can ban any merger that is expected to create or strengthen a dominant position.

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Article 4c(1) says that the Commission can ban any merger that is expected to significantly impede competition.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 1
| Article 4c(3) allows an otherwise impermissible merger if it is to the consumers’ advantage.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 1
| Article 4c(3) allows the Commission to permit an otherwise illegal merger if it will advantage the national economy.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Article 2(1)(b) prohibits limiting production and markets.

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 2 prohibits abuse by a dominant undertaking.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Article 2(1)(a) prohibits price setting.

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Article 2(1)(c) prohibits discriminatory pricing.

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 1
| RPM has been interpreted as illegal under Article 1(1)(a).<ref>See Competition Commission Decisions 133/94 Bakers Corporation of Korinth; 134/94 Greek Federation of Bakers; 135/94 Bakers Union of Theva</ref>

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 1(1)(a) prohibits price fixing.

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Article 1(1)(e) prohibits tying arrangements.

|-
|
| Market Division
| 0
|

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 1(1)(b) prohibits limiting production and markets.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| Article 1(1)(c) prohibits market sharing.

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 0
|

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 0
|

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 1(3)(a) exempts from the Article 1 prohibitions agreements that contribute to improving production or distribution or promote economic progress.

|}

== References ==
<references />

Predatory Pricing Report

2009-03-26T20:49:37Z

Kajrozga:

{| class="wikitable"

|-
! Country
! Predatory Pricing Prohibition
! Comment

|-
| Albania
| 1
| Article 9(2)(d) of Law No. 9121, dated July 28, 2003 on Competition Protection prohibits "the undercutting of prices or other conditions which have as their object or effect the prevention of entry or the expulsion from the market for specific competitor(s) or one of their products . . . ."

|-
| Algeria
| 1
| § 3(16) of the OECD report on Competition Law and Policy in Algeria indicates they prohibit predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/50/26369606.pdf</ref>

|-
| Angola
|0
|

|-
| Argentina
| 0
|

|-
| Armenia
| 0
|

|-
| Australia
| 1
| "Predatory pricing is unlawful under § 46(1) of the Trade Practices Act." <ref> Australian Competition and Consumer Commission web site, http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/322986/fromItemId/3669</ref>

|-
| Austria
| 1
| §31(1)(5) of the Federal Act of 19 October 1988 on Cartels and other Restrictive Trade Practices prohibits the sale of goods below cost price when it cannot be justified on material grounds.

|-
| Azerbaijan
| 0
|

|-
| Bangladesh
| 0
| ''Bangladesh has no competition law in force.''

|-
| Barbados
| 1
| Article 16(3)(d) of the Fair Competition Act (2002) prohibits enterprise actions which "directly or indirectly imposes unfair purchase or selling prices that are excessive, unreasonable, discriminatory or predatory ..."<ref>http://www.commerce.gov.bb/Legislation/Documents/Fair%20Competition%20Act,%20Cap%20326C.pdf</ref>

|-
| Belarus
| 1
| Article 5 prohibits "fixing or maintaining prices (underpinning the market) for deriving monopolistic high profit or removal of competitors ..."<ref>http://law.by/work/EnglPortal.nsf/6e1a652fbefce34ac2256d910056d559/4dd2237ccbd3b4e6c2256dc1002932c6?OpenDocument</ref><ref>World Bank, Competition Law Database, http://go.worldbank.org/SMDO288DV0</ref>

|-
| Belgium
| 1
| Articles 40-41 of The Commercial Practices Act of July 14, 1991 forbid reselling products at a loss.<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-518)</ref>

|-
| Bolivia
| 0
|

|-
| Bosnia-Herzegovina
| 1
| Act on Competition of 2005 is supplemented by the Regulation on Definition of a Dominant Position of 2006. Article 9(c) of this by-law prohibits "fixing a price of the product or service below the production costs with the view to eliminate the competitors."<ref>http://www.bihkonk.gov.ba/en/laws/low_on_competition_new.pdf</ref>

|-
| Brazil
| 1
| Article 21(18) of Law # 8884 OF JUNE 11, 1994 prohibits a dominant from to unreasonably sell products below cost.

|-
| Bulgaria
| 0
| Bulgaria prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Burkina Faso
| 0
|

|-
| Canada
| 1
| § 50(1)(c) of Competition Act of August 23, 2000 prohibits engaging in "a policy of selling products at prices unreasonably low, having the effect or tendency of substantially lessening competition or eliminating a competitor."

|-
| Cambodia
| 0
|

|-
| Cameroon
| 0
|

|-
| Chile
| 1
| The Antitrust Commission has fined firms for engaging in predatory pricing.<ref>Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, Competition Law and Policy in Chile, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/53/24955980.pdf and Global Competition Review website, http://globalcompetitionreview.com/ara/chile.cfm</ref>

|-
| China
| 1
| Law of the People’s Republic of China for Countering Unfair Competition of September 2, 1993 states that "an operator shall not sell its or his goods at a price that is below the cost for the purpose of excluding its or his competitors."

|-
| Colombia
| 1
| Prohibited by article 67 of Law no. 108/05 of May 3, 2006.<ref>http://go.worldbank.org/7P3DRBYZI0</ref>

|-
| Costa Rica
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Cote d'Ivoire
| 0
| Article 24 of Law No. 91-999 of December 27, 1991 on Competition prohibits loss leader selling, but not predatory pricing. <ref>Report on United Nations Conference on Trade and development of 24 November 1997, available at, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2emd11.pdf</ref>

|-
| Croatia
| 0
| No evidence was found of a predatory pricing provision in the Competition Act of July 15, 2003. The Croatian Law on the Protection of Market Competition of July 14, 1995 did prohibit predatory pricing, however. <ref> USAID Croatia Commercial Law Assessment Report, March 2002, http://www.bizlawreform.com/country_assess/Croatia%20Assessment.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Cyprus
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Czech Republic
| 1
| Article 11(1)(e) of the Consolidated Act on the Protection of Competition, ACT No. 143/2001 Coll. of April 4 2001 last amended by Act No. 484/2004 Coll. of 5 August 2004, prohibits by a Dominant firm "consistent offer and sale of goods for unfairly low prices, which results or may result in distortion of competition." <ref>http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2clp50_en.pdf; http://www.compet.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/Legislativa/legislativa_EN/Act_143_2004.doc</ref>

|-
| Denmark
| 1
| The Danish Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Supervision Act of 1955 forbids predatory pricing.<ref>Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/54/2375661.pdf (p. 33)</ref>

|-
| Dominican Republic
| 0
|

|-
| Ecuador
| 0
|

|-
| Egypt
| 1
| Article 8(h) of the Law on the Protection of Competition and the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices prohibits selling products below their marginal cost or average variable cost.

|-
| El Salvador
| 1
| Article 30(c) - "The systematic reduction of prices, below the cost price, with the purpose of eliminating one or several competitors, or impeding the entry or expansion of the same."<ref>http://www.minec.gob.sv/leyes/LeydeCompetencia_english_.pdf</ref>

|-
| Estonia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| EU Generally<ref>Information for this section has been gleaned from '''The EC law of Competition''' (eds. Jonathan Faull and Ali Nikpay)</ref>
| 1
| Article 82 (formerly Article 86) of the EC Treaty prohibits predatory pricing. The Commission began prosecuting predatory pricing in 1985, in the ''AKZO'' case.<ref>''AKZO'' [1985] OJ L374/1.</ref> This case led to the establishment of a two-pronged test for predatory pricing. A firm was guilty of the offense if it either:
# Sets the price at below average variable cost. This amounts to a per se assumption of abusive behavior.
# Sets the price at below average total cost, but above average variable cost. This is also assumed to be predatory, but requires a specific plan by the firm to eliminate competitors.

|-
| Faroe Island
| 0
|

|-
| Fiji
| 1
| The Commerce Commission "reserves its right to investigate any predatory pricing in breach
of section 37 of the Fair Trading Decree 1992." <ref>Official government sources: http://www.fiji.gov.fj/publish/page_7074.shtml; http://www.commcomm.gov.fj/docs/061001-postFijiDetermination.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Finland
| 1
| Article 7(4) of the Act on Competition Restrictions (480/1992) makes, "a pricing practice which is unreasonable or obviously aimed at restricting competition" an abuse of a dominant position.<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. II-363-64)</ref>

|-
| France
|1
| French Competition Act (Ordinance no. 86-1243 of December 1, 1986 (amended July 9, 1999)
"Article 10-1: Price offers or price practices with respect to consumer sales prices that are abusively low in relation to the costs of production, transformation, and marketing are prohibited, since these offers or practices have as their purpose, or may have as their effect, to eliminate from a market or to prevent access to a market by an enterprise or one of its products."

(Note: This Article has been used only rarely by enforcement agencies.) <ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-190)</ref>

|-
| Germany
|1
| § 20(4) of Act Against Restraints of Competition, as amended August 26 1998, states that dominant firms cannot use their market power to hinder competitors in an "unfair manner," which occurs when a firm "offers goods or services not merely occasionally below its cost price . . . ."<ref>http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/europe/Germany/Act%20Against%20Restrainst%20of%20Competition.pdf</ref>

|-
| Georgia
|0
|

|-
| Greece
| 1
| As of August 3, 2000, Courts have interpreted predatory pricing as an abuse of a dominant position.<ref>Competition Law in the EU, p. 605 (citing Competition Commission Decisions 232/95 P.Lambropoulos&Co. Priv. Partn.; 264/95 Protoporia Publications Litd.</ref><ref>Also see: http://www.lambadarioslaw.gr/downloads/en/european_antitrust_review_2007.pdf, at 131.</ref>

|-
| Greenland
|0
|

|-
| Guatemala
| 1
| Article 341 of the Criminal Code, Decree No. 17-73, prohibits "the sale of goods of any kind at a price below their cost, in order to prevent free competition in the domestic market."<ref>FTAA report, Inventory of Domestic Laws and Regulations relating to Competition Policy in the Western Hemisphere, March 22, 2002, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp</ref>

|-
| Guyana
|0
|

|-
| Honduras
| 1
|Article 7(6) prohibits the fixing of prices below cost to eliminate competitors. <ref>http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:21326341~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html</ref>

|-
| Hong Kong
| 1
| Article 7(a) of The Competition Policy Advisory Group Statement on Competition Policy, May 1998 lists predatory pricing as an example of an abuse of a dominant position.

|-
| Hungary
| 1
| Article 21(h) of Act LVII of 1996 on the Prohibition of Unfair and Restrictive Market Practices as amended, effective November 1, 2005 makes it prohibited to "set extremely low prices which are not based on greater efficiency in comparison with that of competitors and which are likely to drive out competitors from the relevant market or to hinder their market entry[.]" The prohibition on predatory pricing, however, can be traced back to the original draft of the Act, as entered into force January 1 1997.<ref>ANNUAL REPORT ON COMPETITION LAW AND POLICY DEVELOPMENTS IN HUNGARY at p. 5, published by the Hungarian Comeptition Authority, 1998. Viewable at www.gvh.hu/domain2/files/modules/module25/pdf/GVH_OGy_beszamolo_1997_a.pdf</ref>

|-
| Iceland
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing was found in the statute. Moreover, predatory pricing has been reported as an ongoing practice by certain firms.<ref>http://www.icelandexpress.com/about_us/press/2004/ice_wars_icelandairs_dirty_trick_campaign_takes_a_different_turn/</ref>

|-
| India
| 1
| § 4(2)(ii) of the The Competition Act, 2002, No. 12 of 2003 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Indonesia
| 1
| Article 21 of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5 of 1999 has been interpreted to forbid dominant firms from imposing predatory pricing.<ref>East Asia Competition Policy Forum reports, http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/01/indonesia_progress_sutrisno.030503.pdf, http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/01/pprs.pdf; Also see United Nation Conference on Trade and Development report of January 29 2002, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2clp25.en.pdf </ref> Article 7 explicitly prohibits predatory pricing agreements between firms.

|-
| Ireland
| 0
| The enforcement agency has investigated an alleged abuse of predatory pricing, but found it did not constitute an abuse and was instead, "intense competition."<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/50/37028481.pdf, 12</ref>

|-
| Iran
| 0
|

|-
| Israel
| 1
| The Restrictive Trade Practices Law 5748 of 1988 prohibits "excessive or predatory pricing of the product under
a monopoly."<ref>http://www.lexmundi.com/images/lexmundi/PDF/guide_israel.pdf</ref>

|-
| Italy
| 0
| Italy has no prohibition on predatory pricing. However, "it is foreseeable that the same principles set forth in EC law to prohibit predatory price cutting by a dominant undertaking may be applied."<ref>Competition Law in the EU, Vol. 1, 384.</ref>

|-
| Jamaica
| 0
|

|-
| Japan
| 0
| Japan prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Jersey, Channel Islands
| 0
| Jersey prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Jordan
| 0
| Prohibited by Articles 6.A and 6.C of the Competition Law of 2004.<ref>World Bank Competition Law Database: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:21001779~menuPK:2137510~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html</ref>

|-
| Kazakhstan
| 1
| Article 10(1)of the 2006 Law of the Republic of Kazahkstan on Competition and Restriction of Monopolistic Activities<ref>Statute provided from the World Bank at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCOMPLEGALDB/Resources/CompetitivenesandMonopolyRestrictionLaw20060707_eng.pdf</ref> prohibits excessively low price setting.

|-
| Kenya
| 1
| Article 10(3)(a) of The Restrictive Trade Practices, Monopolies and Price Control Act of 1990 prohibits selling below average variable cost.

|-
| Kyrgystan
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Lao PDR
| 0
|

|-
| Latvia
| 0
| Latvia has no explicit prohibition on predatory pricing. However, "[p]redatory pricing by definition as a practice aimed at hindrance, restriction or distortion of competition would qualify as an abuse of dominant position.<ref>Dace Silava-Tomsone, Getting the Deal Through – Dominance 2006, http://www.lt-v.lv/pdf/Latvia_dace.pdf</ref>

|-
| Lithuania
| 1
| Lithuania's competition authority includes predatory pricing in its definition of an abuse of a dominant position. This definition is found in a May 17 2000 intra-agency bylaw,<ref>http://www.konkuren.lt/english/antitrust/legislation_resoliution_52.htm</ref> a supplement to their more general competition legislation.<ref>http://www.konkuren.lt/english/antitrust/legislation.htm</ref>

|-
| Luxembourg
| 1
| Below cost selling of goods and services is prohibited under the Act on Commercial Practices, Unfair Competition and Comparative Advertising (July 2002).<ref>http://www.entemp.ie/publications/commerce/2005/groceriesorder/chapter9.pdf</ref>

|-
| Malawi
| 1
| Article 32(2)(a) of the Malawi Competition and Fair Trading Bill of 1998 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Mali
| 1
| Article 17 of Ordonnance N°92-021/P-CTSP Instituant la Liberte des Prix et de la Concurrence, dated April 13, 1992 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Malta
| 1
| Article 9(2)(b) of Chapter 379 Competition Act of February 1 1995 forbids "charg[ing] prices which are below the average variable cost price of a product in order to drive rival competitors out of the market[.]"

|-
| Mauritius
| 1
| Article 11(2)(a) of The Competition Bill N° VI of 2003 prohibits below-cost selling by a dominant firm.

|-
| Macedonia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Mexico
| 1
| Article 7 of the Regulations of the Federal Law on Economic Competition of March 4, 1998 prohibits price setting below market price.

|-
| Moldova
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Mongolia
| 1
| Article 4(3) of the Law of Mongolia on Prohibiting Unfair Competition prohibits a firm from selling own goods at a price lower than the cost.

|-
| Morocco
| 1
| Article 7 of Dahir no. 1-00-225 of 2 rabil I 1421 promulgating law no. 06-99, concerning freedom of prices and competition, prohibits pricing offers or abusive practices in pricing sales to consumers that are low compared to production costs, distribution costs, and promotion costs, when these offers or practices are meant to or may have the effect of eliminating a market.

|-
| Namibia
| 0
|

|-
| Netherlands
| 0
| Dutch law does not forbid resale at a loss, either. <ref>Competition Law in the EU, Vol. 1, 445.</ref>

|-
| New Zealand
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that New Zealand's general test for predatory pricing is similar to the US, in that they ask, "is there below-cost price cutting with a view to recouping losses without loss of market share by raising prices without fear of reprisals afterwards?"<ref>http://www.luc.edu/law/academics/special/center/antitrust/pdfs/berry_nz_summary.pdf</ref>

|-
| Nicaragua
| 1
| Article 19(h) prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.dgpsa.gob.ni/biblioteca/biblioteca_archivos/449/Ley%20601.%20Ley%20%20de%20promocion%20de%20la%20competencia..pdf</ref>

|-
| Nigeria
| 0
|

|-
| Norway
| 1
| Though unclear which specific provision it uses, the Norwegin Competition Authority has recently held numerous proceedings for predatory pricing violations.<ref>http://sec.edgar-online.com/2005/04/15/0001156973-05-000475/Section4.asp; http://competition.practicallaw.com/7-201-3648; http://ld.practicallaw.com/4-208-8975</ref>.

|-
| Pakistan
| 0
|

|-
| Panama
| 1
| "Any predatory action taken unilaterally . . . when said action cannot reasonably be expected to generate or increase earnings, but rather to encourage the competitor or potential competitor to stop competing . . . leaving the agent with substantial power or in a monopolistic position . . ."<ref>FTAA - Negotiating Group on Competition Policy Inventory of Domestic Laws and Regulations relating to Competition Policy in the Western Hemisphere, March 22 2002, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp</ref>

|-
| Papua and New Guinea
| 0
|

|-
| Paraguay
| 0
|

|-
| Philippines
| 0
|

|-
| Peru
| 1
| The Competition Policy Commission initiated proceedings for predatory pricing in ''Tabacalera Nacional S.A. against British American Tabacco (South America) Limited – Perú''.<ref>OECD Global Forum on Competition CONTRIBUTION FROM PERU, October 4 2001, http://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=Predatory_Pricing_Report&action=edit</ref>

|-
| Poland
| 1
| Article 15.1(1) of the The Act on Combating Unfair Competition of April 16 1993 prohibits "the sale of goods or services below their purchase cost in order to eliminate other entrepreneurs."<ref>http://www.uokik.gov.pl/download/Z2Z4L3Vva2lrL2VuL2RlZmF1bHRfb3Bpc3kudjAvNTIvMS8xLzIwMDdfMDFfMTZfdXpua19fZW5nbGlzaF92ZXJzaW9uLnBkZg</ref> Article 8(2)(1) of The Act on Protection of Competition and Consumers of December 15 2000 prohibits "direct or indirect imposition of unfair prices, including predatory prices or prices glaringly low."<ref>http://www.konsument.gov.pl/files/ccp_act.pdf</ref>

|-
| Portugal
| 1
| Decree-Law 370/93 of October 29, 1993 (as amended by Decree-Law 140/98 on May 16 1998) forbids selling goods at a price below the actual price of purchase (plus taxes and transportation costs).<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-326)</ref>

|-
| Romania
| 1
| Article 6(f) of The Parliament of Romania Competition Law of 1996 explicitly prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Russia
| 1
| Article 7 of Law no. 135 on the Protection of Competition prohibits a dominant firm from setting a price that is lower than the sum of expenses necessary for production and sale of the commodity.

|-
| Saudi Arabia
| 1
| Article 5(1) of the Competition Law of 2004 prohibits "selling a commodity or service at a price below cost, with the intention of forcing competitors out of the market."

|-
| Senegal
| 0
|

|-
| Serbia-Montenegro
| 0
|

|-
| Singapore
| 1
| Singapore authorities have clarified that Article 47(2)(a) of No. 46 Competition Act of 2004 includes prohibition ofpredatory pricing.<ref>http://app.mti.gov.sg/default.asp?id=148&articleID=107; http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN025141.pdf</ref>

|-
| Slovak Republic
| 1
| The Slovak Republic forbids abusive acts by a dominant firm seeking to exclude competition.<ref>136/2001 Coll. ACT of 27 February 2001 on Protection of Competition and on Amendments and Supplements to Act of the Slovak National Council No. 347/1990 Coll. (Article 8(2)(e))</ref> The Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic (their enforcement agency) has used this provision to prosecute temporary predatory pricing of fuels as early as September 26 2001,<ref>Decision No. 2001/DZ/P/2/283 issued by Chairman of the Office on September 26, 2001 (http://www.antimon.gov.sk/eng/article.aspx?c=395&a=2139</ref> but the decision was never given effect, as the defendant discontinued its pricing scheme.

|-
| Slovenia
| 0
| No predatory pricing provision found. Office for Protection of Competition received one complaint of predatory pricing against Produkcija Plus d.o.o. - RTV Slovenia d.o.o. on 2/20/01. However, the complaint was dismissed (Office did not rule on the merits).<ref>http://www.uvk.gov.si/fileadmin/uvk.gov.si/pageuploads/Enforcement_Record_2001.pdf</ref>

|-
| South Africa
| 1
| Section 8(d)(iv) of the South African Competition Act 89 of 1998 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| South Korea
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that predatory pricing is prohibited.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=9aSrAg57v-oC&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq=korea+predatory+pricing&source=web&ots=Ha4I_DL5gr&sig=uPTcGF0DqgytzhKgN4wMY9_J0KcDeregulation Deregulation and Interdependence in the Asia-Pacific Region by Anne O. Krueger, Takatoshi Itō]</ref>

|-
| Spain
| 1
| There are two cases where the courts have issued fines for predatory pricing:

1. General Electric Espana[20], December 30 1991, - GE's local affiliate was fined Pta 15 million (~90,000 euros)<ref>TDC Dec. 295/91, or December 30, 1991</ref>

2. Arbora/Ausonia, January 7 1992<ref>TDC Dec. 291/90, January 7, 1992</ref>

Predatory pricing, presumably, is covered by common law because there is no mention of it in the Spanish competition laws.

Note: More recently, Telefónica, a Spanish firm, was fined by £102.6m (€152m) by the EU competition agency.<ref>http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/government-law/legislation/news/index.cfm?newsid=3865</ref>

|-
| Sri Lanka
| 1
| Anti-competitive practices prohibited by the Fair Trading Commission Act No. 1 of 1987 includes predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/articles/sri_lankan/HTML/CV39.html</ref>In Ceylon Oxygen Co. Ltd. V. Fair Trading Commission And Another, the Commission considered a predatory pricing complaint.<ref>http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/case_law/slr/HTML/1997SLR2V372.htm</ref>

|-
| Sweden
| 0
| No predatory pricing provision found.

|-
| Switzerland
| 1
| Article 7(2) of the Federal Act on Cartels and Other Restraints of Competition of October 6, 1995 prohibits "the under-cutting of prices or other conditions directed against a specific competitor."

|-
| Taiwan
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that competition law in Taiwan stipulates that enterprises in dominant market positions should not improperly fix, maintain or change the price of the goods and services, and that ''predatory pricing definitely belongs to improperly fixing price''.<ref>http://www.jurist.org.cn/doc/uclaw200512/uclaw20051206.pdf</ref>

|-
| Tajikistan
| 1
| Article 4 prohibits a dominant firm from setting low prices.

|-
| Tanzania
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Thailand
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that predatory pricing is an unfair practice under Thai Guidelines.<ref>http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/05/APECTrainingProgramDecember2004/Kalampakorn_Thai.pdf</ref>

|-
| Tunisia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Turkey
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Ukraine
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| United Kingdom
| 1
| Chapter II of the Fair Trading Act of 1973 prohibits predatory pricing. The OFT has published the following guidelines to assess whether pricing schemes are predatory:<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. II-63)</ref>

{| class="wikitable"

|-
| Price below average variable cost
| Predation can be assumed

|-
| Price below average variable cost but below average total cost
| Evidence on costs may indicate predation but evidence required of intention to eliminate a competitor before predation could be found

|-
| Price above average total costs
| Evidence on costs does not indicate predation

|}

The Competition Act of 1980 is also at the disposal of the Director General of the Office of Free Trade (OFT) for the prohibition of predatory pricing.

|-
| United States
| 0
| Though predatory pricing is formally prohibited, the law in the United States is riddled with exceptions that effectively eliminate the predatory pricing prohibition. The "recoupment test" is a notable example.<ref>See ''Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.'', 509 U.S. 209 (1993)</ref>

|-
| Uruguay
| 1
| Article 3(2)(c) of the Law of the Defense of the Competition prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>See Law of the Defense of the Competition, http://www.sice.oas.org/compol/natleg/Uruguay/dec1503.asp#DECRETO</ref>

|-
| Uzbekistan
| 1
| Article 5 prohibits a firm from setting a monopolistic low price, which is defined as the price of a good consciously set by the undertaking, with dominant position in the market as a seller, at a level bringing the losses from sale of a given good, result of which is or may be the restriction of competition by means of driving the competitors out of the market.

|-
| Venezuela
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found. Moreover, a secondary source suggests that no such prohibition exists.<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=2tsyQFzaj0UC&pg=RA1-PA349&lpg=RA1-PA349&dq=venezuela+predatory+pricing&source=web&ots=lrCQHugr38&sig=gol1a-LNF_pcCwR3vuIkFTIj1Rw</ref>

|-
| Vietnam
| 1
| Secondary source indicates Vietnam prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.freshfields.com/practice/comptrade/publications/pdf/10388.pdf</ref>

|-
| Zambia
| 1
| Article 7(2)(a) of The Competition and Fair Trading Act (1994) prohibits "predatory behaviour towards competition including the use of cost pricing to eliminate competitors."<ref>The Competition and Fair Trading Act (1994), http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/africa/Zambia/COMPETITION%20anDFAIR%20TRADING%20ACT.PDF</ref>

|-
| Zimbabwe
| 1
| Amendment 14 of 2001 to the The Competition Act of 1996 prohibits "[s]elling at very low prices or at below production costs as a deliberate strategy of driving competitors off the market."

|}

== References ==

<references />

Malta

2009-03-26T20:33:52Z

Kajrozga:

<h1 style="margin:0; font-size:155%;text-align:left; color:#666; padding:0.2em 0.2em;">National Law</h1>Malta's Competition Act was enacted in 1995. This act did not cover mergers, so Malta enacted a separate set of regulations covering mergers in 2003. Subsequently in 2004, Malta amended the 1995 Competition Act to include certain exemptions. These exemptions do not affect the scoring in this report.

:*[[Malta (2007)]] The Competition Act was amended in 2007 to reflect the adoption of the Euro. The changes do not affect the 2003 scoring. The Merger Regs were also amended in 2007. However, the amendments don't change the 2003 scoring.
:*Malta (May, 14, 2004)<ref>The 2004 amendments cover certain exemptions which do not affect the scoring in this report.</ref>
:*[[Malta (January 1, 2003)]]
:*[[Malta (February 1, 1995)]]

<h1 style="margin:0; font-size:155%;text-align:left; color:#666; padding:0.2em 0.2em;">EU law</h1>
:* [[Malta/EU, 2005]]<ref>As a member of the EU, Malta is obliged to apply EU competition law in some circumstances, but not when anticompetitive practices and effects are limited to the Maltese market. This coding represents how Maltese authorities would apply EU Law in the national courts.</ref>

<h2 style="margin:0; font-size:140%;text-align:left; color:#666; padding:0.2em 0.2em;">References</h2>
<references />

Greece

2009-03-26T20:30:29Z

Kajrozga:

* [[Greece (1976)]]
* [[Greece (September 26 1977)]]
* [[Greece (August 3, 2000)]]
* [[Greece (August 2, 2006)]]<ref>as last amended by Act of 2 August 2006 (no. 3373/2005)</ref>

<h1 style="margin:0; font-size:155%;text-align:left; color:#666; padding:0.2em 0.2em;">EU law</h1>
* [[Greece/EU, 2003]]<ref>As a member of the EU, Greece is obliged to apply EU competition law in some circumstances, but not when anticompetitive practices and effects are limited to the national market. This coding represents how the national authorities would apply EU Law in the national courts.</ref>

== Notes ==
<references/>

Slovenia

2009-03-26T20:28:30Z

Kajrozga:

*Slovenia (2008).<ref>In April, 2008, Slovenia passed a new competition statute, which can be found in Slovene at http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=200836&stevilka=1459. Currently, an English translation is unavailable.</ref>
*[[Slovenia (2004)]]

<h1 style="margin:0; font-size:155%;text-align:left; color:#666; padding:0.2em 0.2em;">EU law</h1>
* [[Slovenia/EU, 2004]]<ref>As a member of the EU, Slovenia is obliged to apply EU competition law in some circumstances, but not when anticompetitive practices and effects are limited to the national market. This coding represents how the national authorities would apply EU Law in the national courts.</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

European Commission

2009-03-24T18:58:41Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 27 '''

''Governed by: '''''EU law''': Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty Establishing the European Communities (Rome Treaty), Regulation 1/2003 of 16 December 2002.<ref>Available at http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/legislation/legislation.html</ref> Mergers are governed by Council Regulation 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertaking (the EC Merger Regulation) of 20 January 2004.<ref>Available at http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/regulations.html#merger_reg</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| EU law (the Rome Treaty) governs whenever conduct has effects on trade between Member States pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation 1/2003.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Council Regulation 1/2003 (Chapter VI, Articles 23 and 24)

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Article 8(4) of Regulation 139/2004 (EC Merger Regulation).

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Council Regulation 1/2003 (Chapter III, Article 7(2))

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 1
| Private citizens have a right to bring a civil action in a national court with adequate competence.<ref>Green Paper: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2005:0672:FIN:EN:PDF</ref>

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 1
| Council Regulation 1/2003 (Chapter VIII, Article 3)) - 3rd parties may be heard by the Comission in proceedings; interested 3rd parties have the right to be heard in merger assessment proceedings (preamble to EC Merger Control Regulation 139/2004, para. 38)

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Article 4(1), Articles 6 and 7 of EC Merger Regulation 139/2004.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
| Article 4(1), Articles 6 and 7 of EC Merger Regulation 139/2004.

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| EC Merger Control Regulation 139/2004, Article 2(1)(b), 2(2) and 2(3)
|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| EC Merger Control Regulation 139/2004, Article 2(1), 2(2) and 2(3)

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 1
| EC Merger Control Regulation 139/2004, Article 2(1)(b)

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 1
| EC Merger Control Regulation 139/2004, Article 2(1)(b)

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 1
| Preamble to EC Merger Control Regulation 139/2004 on page 4 (para. 29).

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Article 82(b) of the Rome Treaty prohibits limiting access.

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 82 of the Rome Treaty prohibits abuse of dominant position.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Article 82(a) of the Rome Treaty prohibits price setting.

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Article 82(c) of the Rome Treaty prohibits discriminatory conditions.

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 1
| Article 82(a) of the Rome Treaty prohibits resale price maintenance.

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 1
| Article 82 of the Rome Treaty prohibits anti-competitive pricing schemes.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 81(1)(a) of the Rome Treaty prohibits price fixing.

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Article 81(1)(e) of the Rome Treaty prohibits tying.

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Article 81 of the Rome Treaty prohibits customer allocation clauses.

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 81(1)(b) of the Rome Treaty prohibits limiting production.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| Article 81(1)(c) of the Rome Treaty prohibits market sharing.

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| Article 81(1) of the Rome Treaty prohibits agreements that have the purpose or effect of eliminating competition.

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| Article 81 of the Rome Treaty prohibits bid-rigging.<ref>http://www.eujapan.com/europe/seminar_tokyo_mehta1_april08.pdf</ref>

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 1
| Article 81(1)(b) of the Rome Treaty prohibits supply refusal.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 81(3) of the Rome Treaty allows an efficiency defense.

|}

== References ==
<references />

Brunei Darussalam

2009-03-19T15:03:21Z

Kajrozga: New page: Brunei Darussalam has no competition statute in force. "Whilst there is no specific legislation pertaining to all aspects of competition, there is an act entitled: The Monopolies Act, Cap...

Brunei Darussalam has no competition statute in force.

"Whilst there is no specific legislation pertaining to all aspects of competition, there is an act entitled: The Monopolies Act, Cap. 73 of the Laws of Brunei. This Act has been in existence since 1932 and has so far not been used or updated. Brunei Darussalam is at this stage considering how to properly implement the regulation of competition from the grassroots level upwards."<ref>http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/asia.htm#Brunei</ref>

== References ==
<references />

Main Page

2009-03-19T14:29:35Z

Kajrozga:

{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px -8px;"
|border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5fffa;"
! <h1 style="margin:0; background:#cef2e0; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Antitrust World Reports by Professor Keith N. Hylton</h1>
|-
| AntitrustWorldWiki.com is a collaborative database covering antitrust laws around the world. Its purpose is to provide information on the key provisions of antitrust laws in a manner that enables users of this wiki to compare antitrust enforcement regimes around the world. We will expand the site to include new information and to enable users to post comments and observations.
|}
|}

== Authors ==
'''Keith N. Hylton''', a professor of law at Boston University, has published numerous articles in American law journals and peer-reviewed law and economics journals. His antitrust textbook, [http://www.amazon.com/Antitrust-Law-Economic-Theory-Evolution/dp/0521793785/ref=sr_1_1/002-8545403-9069605?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185315361&sr=8-1 ''Antitrust Law: Economic Theory and Common Law Evolution''], was published by Cambridge University Press in 2003. [http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/profiles/bios/full-time/hylton_k.html View full faculty profile.]

'''Research Assistants'''
:*[[Sean Miller]]
:*Nicola Leiter
:*[[User:AchalOza|Achal Oza]]
:*[[User:Kajrozga|Kaj Rozga]]
:*[[User:JWSchneider|Jacob Schneider]]
:*[[User:HCargill|Helen Hostetter]]
:*[[User:LMyhre|Lynne Myhre]]
:*Katerina Novak
:*Marc Shapiro

In addition to their own research, the authors have relied on translations and additional research by Boston University graduate and law students, especially Dena Milligan and Andrea Tkacikova.

Special thanks to Matt Grayson for designing the site logo.

== Suggested Citation Format ==

[Signal] Keith N. Hylton et al., [article/page/report name], Antitrust World Reports, ''available at'' [URL location] [(optional other parenthetical)] (as of [date], [time] GMT).

'''Examples'''
* Keith N. Hylton et al., Antitrust World Reports, ''available at'' <nowiki>http://antitrustworldwiki.com</nowiki> (as of October 10, 2007, 05:30 PM GMT).
* Keith N. Hylton et al., <u>Country Report: Romania (December 10, 2003)</u>, Antitrust World Reports, ''available at'' <nowiki>http://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php/Romania_%28December_10%2C_2003%29</nowiki> (noting Romania's ban on tying) (as of October 10, 2007, 05:30 PM GMT).

== Notice on Accuracy of Data ==

'''AntitrustWorldWiki.com''' is a unique research tool. It is designed not for formal publication, but as a means to methodically draw-out factual information regarding the ever-changing body of international competition law. The authors assert only that the data on these pages is accurate to the best of their knowledge. The authors readily welcome and encourage any outside expertise on a particular jurisdiction's formal law or the extent of its enforcement.

== Research Support ==

The authors thank [http://www.bu.edu/law/ Boston University School of Law] and [http://www.microsoft.com Microsoft Corporation] for research support.

== Publications Based on this Database ==
* Keith N. Hylton and Fei Deng, Antitrust Around the World: An Empirical Analysis of the Scope of Competition Laws and Their Effects, 74 Antitrust L.J. 2 (2007). This article is available at http://www.nera.com/image/PUB_AntitrustLawJournal.pdf.

== Databases Notes ==
* [[Author's Notes]]
* [[Index Definitions]]
* [[Notes on Scoring]]

== Special Reports ==
* [[Predatory Pricing Report]]
* [[Competition Enforcement Budgets]]
* [[Penalties Report]]

== Country Reports ==
The following data represents a comprehensive survey of current antitrust regimes throughout the world. The original texts of individual statutes in each country were examined for the presence of various elements. Each included country receives an individual report here that indicates the presence or absence of these various elements in the country’s statutes. The presence of an element is accompanied by a short explanation and/or citation to the applicable statute. The elements themselves are defined [[Index Definitions|here]]. Some definitions are broad and could be divided into subcategories, in these cases, detailed comments are provided. Each report also includes a numerical score for comparison across countries and regions, or for empirical analysis.

{| style="background:Turquoise; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Central and Southern Africa'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Angola]]
| [[Benin]]
| [[Botswana]]
| [[Burkina Faso]]
| [[Cameroon]]
| [[Cote d'Ivoire]]
| [[Kenya]]

|- align="center"
| [[Malawi]]
| [[Mali]]
| [[Mauritius]]
| [[Namibia]]
| [[Nigeria]]
| [[Senegal]]

|- align="center"
| [[South Africa]]
| [[Tanzania]]
| [[Zambia]]
| [[Zimbabwe]]
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:Turquoise; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Middle East and Northern Africa'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"

|- align="center"
| [[Algeria]]
| [[Bahrain]]
| [[Egypt]]
| [[Iran]]
| [[Israel]]
| [[Jordan]]
| [[Morocco]]

|- align="center"
| [[Qatar]]
| [[Saudi Arabia]]
| [[Syria]]
| [[Tunisia]]
| [[United Arab Emirates]]
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:Cornflowerblue; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Europe: European Union'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
|[[European Commission]]
|}

<h2 style="margin:0; background:lightblue; font-size:100%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:center; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Member Countries</h2>
{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Austria]]
| [[Belgium]]
| [[Bulgaria]]
| [[Cyprus]]
| [[Czech Republic]]
| [[Denmark]]

|- align="center"
| [[Estonia]]
| [[Finland]]
| [[France]]
| [[Germany]]
| [[Greece]]
| [[Hungary]]

|- align="center"
| [[Ireland]]
| [[Italy]]
| [[Latvia]]
| [[Lithuania]]
| [[Luxembourg]]
| [[Malta]]

|- align="center"
| [[Netherlands]]
| [[Poland]]
| [[Portugal]]
| [[Romania]]
| [[Slovak Republic]]
| [[Slovenia]]

|- align="center"
| [[Spain]]
| [[Sweden]]
| [[United Kingdom]]
|
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:Cornflowerblue; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Europe: Non-European Union'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"

|- align="center"
| [[Albania]]
| [[Armenia]]
| [[Belarus]]
| [[Bosnia-Herzegovina]]
| [[Croatia]]
| [[Faroe Island]]

|- align="center"
| [[Georgia]]
| [[Greenland]]
| [[Iceland]]
| [[Jersey, Channel Islands]]
| [[Macedonia]]
| [[Moldova]]

|- align="center"

| [[Norway]]
| [[Russia]]
| [[Serbia]]
| [[Switzerland]]
| [[Turkey]]
| [[Ukraine]]

|}

|}

{| style="background:#33CC00; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Asia'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Azerbaijan]]
| [[Bangladesh]]
| [[Brunei Darussalam]]
| [[China]]
| [[Hong Kong]]
| [[India]]
| [[Indonesia]]

|- align="center"
| [[Japan]]
| [[Kazakhstan]]
| [[Kyrgyzstan]]
| [[Lao PDR]]
| [[Mongolia]]
| [[Pakistan]]

|- align="center"
| [[Singapore]]
| [[South Korea]]
| [[Sri Lanka]]
| [[Taiwan]]
| [[Tajikistan]]
| [[Thailand]]

|- align="center"

| [[Uzbekistan]]
| [[Vietnam]]
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:yellowgreen; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Oceania'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Australia]]
| [[Fiji]]
| [[New Zealand]]
| [[Papua New Guinea]]
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:#FFFF66; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''North America'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Canada]]
| [[United States]]
|
|
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:#FFFF66; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Caribbean'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Barbados]]
| [[Jamaica]]
| [[Trinidad and Tobago]]
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:Orange; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Central America'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Costa Rica]]
| [[El Salvador]]
| [[Guatemala]]
| [[Honduras]]
| [[Mexico]]
| [[Nicaragua]]

|- align="center"
| [[Panama]]
|
|
|
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:Orange; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''South America'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Argentina]]
| [[Bolivia]]
| [[Brazil]]
| [[Chile]]
| [[Colombia]]
| [[Guyana]]

|- align="center"
| [[Peru]]
| [[Uruguay]]
| [[Venezuela]]
|
|

|}

|}

__NOTOC__

Bahrain

2009-03-19T13:55:57Z

Kajrozga: New page: Bahrain has no competition statute in force. "However, there are some provisions in the Constitution, and the Law of Commerce, which deals with this aspect. Article 117 of the Constitutio...

Bahrain has no competition statute in force.

"However, there are some provisions in the Constitution, and the Law of Commerce, which deals with this aspect. Article 117 of the Constitution stipulates that any monopoly shall only be awarded by law and for a limited time.The Law of Commerce (Article 59 to 64) which is applicable to traders and to all commercial activities undertaken by any person, even though he is not a trader, has a section on unfair competition."<ref>http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/asia.htm#Bahrain</ref>

== References ==
<references />

Main Page

2009-03-19T13:54:43Z

Kajrozga:

{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px -8px;"
|border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5fffa;"
! <h1 style="margin:0; background:#cef2e0; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Antitrust World Reports by Professor Keith N. Hylton</h1>
|-
| AntitrustWorldWiki.com is a collaborative database covering antitrust laws around the world. Its purpose is to provide information on the key provisions of antitrust laws in a manner that enables users of this wiki to compare antitrust enforcement regimes around the world. We will expand the site to include new information and to enable users to post comments and observations.
|}
|}

== Authors ==
'''Keith N. Hylton''', a professor of law at Boston University, has published numerous articles in American law journals and peer-reviewed law and economics journals. His antitrust textbook, [http://www.amazon.com/Antitrust-Law-Economic-Theory-Evolution/dp/0521793785/ref=sr_1_1/002-8545403-9069605?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185315361&sr=8-1 ''Antitrust Law: Economic Theory and Common Law Evolution''], was published by Cambridge University Press in 2003. [http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/profiles/bios/full-time/hylton_k.html View full faculty profile.]

'''Research Assistants'''
:*[[Sean Miller]]
:*Nicola Leiter
:*[[User:AchalOza|Achal Oza]]
:*[[User:Kajrozga|Kaj Rozga]]
:*[[User:JWSchneider|Jacob Schneider]]
:*[[User:HCargill|Helen Hostetter]]
:*[[User:LMyhre|Lynne Myhre]]
:*Katerina Novak
:*Marc Shapiro

In addition to their own research, the authors have relied on translations and additional research by Boston University graduate and law students, especially Dena Milligan and Andrea Tkacikova.

Special thanks to Matt Grayson for designing the site logo.

== Suggested Citation Format ==

[Signal] Keith N. Hylton et al., [article/page/report name], Antitrust World Reports, ''available at'' [URL location] [(optional other parenthetical)] (as of [date], [time] GMT).

'''Examples'''
* Keith N. Hylton et al., Antitrust World Reports, ''available at'' <nowiki>http://antitrustworldwiki.com</nowiki> (as of October 10, 2007, 05:30 PM GMT).
* Keith N. Hylton et al., <u>Country Report: Romania (December 10, 2003)</u>, Antitrust World Reports, ''available at'' <nowiki>http://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php/Romania_%28December_10%2C_2003%29</nowiki> (noting Romania's ban on tying) (as of October 10, 2007, 05:30 PM GMT).

== Notice on Accuracy of Data ==

'''AntitrustWorldWiki.com''' is a unique research tool. It is designed not for formal publication, but as a means to methodically draw-out factual information regarding the ever-changing body of international competition law. The authors assert only that the data on these pages is accurate to the best of their knowledge. The authors readily welcome and encourage any outside expertise on a particular jurisdiction's formal law or the extent of its enforcement.

== Research Support ==

The authors thank [http://www.bu.edu/law/ Boston University School of Law] and [http://www.microsoft.com Microsoft Corporation] for research support.

== Publications Based on this Database ==
* Keith N. Hylton and Fei Deng, Antitrust Around the World: An Empirical Analysis of the Scope of Competition Laws and Their Effects, 74 Antitrust L.J. 2 (2007). This article is available at http://www.nera.com/image/PUB_AntitrustLawJournal.pdf.

== Databases Notes ==
* [[Author's Notes]]
* [[Index Definitions]]
* [[Notes on Scoring]]

== Special Reports ==
* [[Predatory Pricing Report]]
* [[Competition Enforcement Budgets]]
* [[Penalties Report]]

== Country Reports ==
The following data represents a comprehensive survey of current antitrust regimes throughout the world. The original texts of individual statutes in each country were examined for the presence of various elements. Each included country receives an individual report here that indicates the presence or absence of these various elements in the country’s statutes. The presence of an element is accompanied by a short explanation and/or citation to the applicable statute. The elements themselves are defined [[Index Definitions|here]]. Some definitions are broad and could be divided into subcategories, in these cases, detailed comments are provided. Each report also includes a numerical score for comparison across countries and regions, or for empirical analysis.

{| style="background:Turquoise; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Central and Southern Africa'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Angola]]
| [[Benin]]
| [[Botswana]]
| [[Burkina Faso]]
| [[Cameroon]]
| [[Cote d'Ivoire]]
| [[Kenya]]

|- align="center"
| [[Malawi]]
| [[Mali]]
| [[Mauritius]]
| [[Namibia]]
| [[Nigeria]]
| [[Senegal]]

|- align="center"
| [[South Africa]]
| [[Tanzania]]
| [[Zambia]]
| [[Zimbabwe]]
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:Turquoise; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Middle East and Northern Africa'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"

|- align="center"
| [[Algeria]]
| [[Bahrain]]
| [[Egypt]]
| [[Iran]]
| [[Israel]]
| [[Jordan]]
| [[Morocco]]

|- align="center"
| [[Qatar]]
| [[Saudi Arabia]]
| [[Syria]]
| [[Tunisia]]
| [[United Arab Emirates]]
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:Cornflowerblue; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Europe: European Union'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
|[[European Commission]]
|}

<h2 style="margin:0; background:lightblue; font-size:100%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:center; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Member Countries</h2>
{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Austria]]
| [[Belgium]]
| [[Bulgaria]]
| [[Cyprus]]
| [[Czech Republic]]
| [[Denmark]]

|- align="center"
| [[Estonia]]
| [[Finland]]
| [[France]]
| [[Germany]]
| [[Greece]]
| [[Hungary]]

|- align="center"
| [[Ireland]]
| [[Italy]]
| [[Latvia]]
| [[Lithuania]]
| [[Luxembourg]]
| [[Malta]]

|- align="center"
| [[Netherlands]]
| [[Poland]]
| [[Portugal]]
| [[Romania]]
| [[Slovak Republic]]
| [[Slovenia]]

|- align="center"
| [[Spain]]
| [[Sweden]]
| [[United Kingdom]]
|
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:Cornflowerblue; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Europe: Non-European Union'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"

|- align="center"
| [[Albania]]
| [[Armenia]]
| [[Belarus]]
| [[Bosnia-Herzegovina]]
| [[Croatia]]
| [[Faroe Island]]

|- align="center"
| [[Georgia]]
| [[Greenland]]
| [[Iceland]]
| [[Jersey, Channel Islands]]
| [[Macedonia]]
| [[Moldova]]

|- align="center"

| [[Norway]]
| [[Russia]]
| [[Serbia]]
| [[Switzerland]]
| [[Turkey]]
| [[Ukraine]]

|}

|}

{| style="background:#33CC00; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Asia'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Azerbaijan]]
| [[Bangladesh]]
| [[China]]
| [[Hong Kong]]
| [[India]]
| [[Indonesia]]

|- align="center"
| [[Japan]]
| [[Kazakhstan]]
| [[Kyrgyzstan]]
| [[Lao PDR]]
| [[Mongolia]]
| [[Pakistan]]

|- align="center"
| [[Singapore]]
| [[South Korea]]
| [[Sri Lanka]]
| [[Taiwan]]
| [[Tajikistan]]
| [[Thailand]]

|- align="center"

| [[Uzbekistan]]
| [[Vietnam]]
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:yellowgreen; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Oceania'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Australia]]
| [[Fiji]]
| [[New Zealand]]
| [[Papua New Guinea]]
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:#FFFF66; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''North America'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Canada]]
| [[United States]]
|
|
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:#FFFF66; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Caribbean'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Barbados]]
| [[Jamaica]]
| [[Trinidad and Tobago]]
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:Orange; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Central America'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Costa Rica]]
| [[El Salvador]]
| [[Guatemala]]
| [[Honduras]]
| [[Mexico]]
| [[Nicaragua]]

|- align="center"
| [[Panama]]
|
|
|
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:Orange; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''South America'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Argentina]]
| [[Bolivia]]
| [[Brazil]]
| [[Chile]]
| [[Colombia]]
| [[Guyana]]

|- align="center"
| [[Peru]]
| [[Uruguay]]
| [[Venezuela]]
|
|

|}

|}

__NOTOC__

Botswana

2009-03-19T13:48:06Z

Kajrozga: New page: Botswana is in the process of adopting a competition law. "Section 48 of the Telecommunications Act, 1996 provides for Competition rules while Section 69 of the Industrial Property Act pr...

Botswana is in the process of adopting a competition law.

"Section 48 of the Telecommunications Act, 1996 provides for Competition rules while Section 69 of the Industrial Property Act provides for Acts of Unfair Competition."<ref>http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/africa.htm#Algeria</ref>

== References ==
<references />

Main Page

2009-03-19T13:46:51Z

Kajrozga:

{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px -8px;"
|border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5fffa;"
! <h1 style="margin:0; background:#cef2e0; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Antitrust World Reports by Professor Keith N. Hylton</h1>
|-
| AntitrustWorldWiki.com is a collaborative database covering antitrust laws around the world. Its purpose is to provide information on the key provisions of antitrust laws in a manner that enables users of this wiki to compare antitrust enforcement regimes around the world. We will expand the site to include new information and to enable users to post comments and observations.
|}
|}

== Authors ==
'''Keith N. Hylton''', a professor of law at Boston University, has published numerous articles in American law journals and peer-reviewed law and economics journals. His antitrust textbook, [http://www.amazon.com/Antitrust-Law-Economic-Theory-Evolution/dp/0521793785/ref=sr_1_1/002-8545403-9069605?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185315361&sr=8-1 ''Antitrust Law: Economic Theory and Common Law Evolution''], was published by Cambridge University Press in 2003. [http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/profiles/bios/full-time/hylton_k.html View full faculty profile.]

'''Research Assistants'''
:*[[Sean Miller]]
:*Nicola Leiter
:*[[User:AchalOza|Achal Oza]]
:*[[User:Kajrozga|Kaj Rozga]]
:*[[User:JWSchneider|Jacob Schneider]]
:*[[User:HCargill|Helen Hostetter]]
:*[[User:LMyhre|Lynne Myhre]]
:*Katerina Novak
:*Marc Shapiro

In addition to their own research, the authors have relied on translations and additional research by Boston University graduate and law students, especially Dena Milligan and Andrea Tkacikova.

Special thanks to Matt Grayson for designing the site logo.

== Suggested Citation Format ==

[Signal] Keith N. Hylton et al., [article/page/report name], Antitrust World Reports, ''available at'' [URL location] [(optional other parenthetical)] (as of [date], [time] GMT).

'''Examples'''
* Keith N. Hylton et al., Antitrust World Reports, ''available at'' <nowiki>http://antitrustworldwiki.com</nowiki> (as of October 10, 2007, 05:30 PM GMT).
* Keith N. Hylton et al., <u>Country Report: Romania (December 10, 2003)</u>, Antitrust World Reports, ''available at'' <nowiki>http://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php/Romania_%28December_10%2C_2003%29</nowiki> (noting Romania's ban on tying) (as of October 10, 2007, 05:30 PM GMT).

== Notice on Accuracy of Data ==

'''AntitrustWorldWiki.com''' is a unique research tool. It is designed not for formal publication, but as a means to methodically draw-out factual information regarding the ever-changing body of international competition law. The authors assert only that the data on these pages is accurate to the best of their knowledge. The authors readily welcome and encourage any outside expertise on a particular jurisdiction's formal law or the extent of its enforcement.

== Research Support ==

The authors thank [http://www.bu.edu/law/ Boston University School of Law] and [http://www.microsoft.com Microsoft Corporation] for research support.

== Publications Based on this Database ==
* Keith N. Hylton and Fei Deng, Antitrust Around the World: An Empirical Analysis of the Scope of Competition Laws and Their Effects, 74 Antitrust L.J. 2 (2007). This article is available at http://www.nera.com/image/PUB_AntitrustLawJournal.pdf.

== Databases Notes ==
* [[Author's Notes]]
* [[Index Definitions]]
* [[Notes on Scoring]]

== Special Reports ==
* [[Predatory Pricing Report]]
* [[Competition Enforcement Budgets]]
* [[Penalties Report]]

== Country Reports ==
The following data represents a comprehensive survey of current antitrust regimes throughout the world. The original texts of individual statutes in each country were examined for the presence of various elements. Each included country receives an individual report here that indicates the presence or absence of these various elements in the country’s statutes. The presence of an element is accompanied by a short explanation and/or citation to the applicable statute. The elements themselves are defined [[Index Definitions|here]]. Some definitions are broad and could be divided into subcategories, in these cases, detailed comments are provided. Each report also includes a numerical score for comparison across countries and regions, or for empirical analysis.

{| style="background:Turquoise; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Central and Southern Africa'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Angola]]
| [[Benin]]
| [[Botswana]]
| [[Burkina Faso]]
| [[Cameroon]]
| [[Cote d'Ivoire]]
| [[Kenya]]

|- align="center"
| [[Malawi]]
| [[Mali]]
| [[Mauritius]]
| [[Namibia]]
| [[Nigeria]]
| [[Senegal]]

|- align="center"
| [[South Africa]]
| [[Tanzania]]
| [[Zambia]]
| [[Zimbabwe]]
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:Turquoise; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Middle East and Northern Africa'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"

|- align="center"
| [[Algeria]]
| [[Egypt]]
| [[Iran]]
| [[Israel]]
| [[Jordan]]
| [[Morocco]]

|- align="center"
| [[Qatar]]
| [[Saudi Arabia]]
| [[Syria]]
| [[Tunisia]]
| [[United Arab Emirates]]
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:Cornflowerblue; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Europe: European Union'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
|[[European Commission]]
|}

<h2 style="margin:0; background:lightblue; font-size:100%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:center; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Member Countries</h2>
{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Austria]]
| [[Belgium]]
| [[Bulgaria]]
| [[Cyprus]]
| [[Czech Republic]]
| [[Denmark]]

|- align="center"
| [[Estonia]]
| [[Finland]]
| [[France]]
| [[Germany]]
| [[Greece]]
| [[Hungary]]

|- align="center"
| [[Ireland]]
| [[Italy]]
| [[Latvia]]
| [[Lithuania]]
| [[Luxembourg]]
| [[Malta]]

|- align="center"
| [[Netherlands]]
| [[Poland]]
| [[Portugal]]
| [[Romania]]
| [[Slovak Republic]]
| [[Slovenia]]

|- align="center"
| [[Spain]]
| [[Sweden]]
| [[United Kingdom]]
|
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:Cornflowerblue; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Europe: Non-European Union'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"

|- align="center"
| [[Albania]]
| [[Armenia]]
| [[Belarus]]
| [[Bosnia-Herzegovina]]
| [[Croatia]]
| [[Faroe Island]]

|- align="center"
| [[Georgia]]
| [[Greenland]]
| [[Iceland]]
| [[Jersey, Channel Islands]]
| [[Macedonia]]
| [[Moldova]]

|- align="center"

| [[Norway]]
| [[Russia]]
| [[Serbia]]
| [[Switzerland]]
| [[Turkey]]
| [[Ukraine]]

|}

|}

{| style="background:#33CC00; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Asia'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Azerbaijan]]
| [[Bangladesh]]
| [[China]]
| [[Hong Kong]]
| [[India]]
| [[Indonesia]]

|- align="center"
| [[Japan]]
| [[Kazakhstan]]
| [[Kyrgyzstan]]
| [[Lao PDR]]
| [[Mongolia]]
| [[Pakistan]]

|- align="center"
| [[Singapore]]
| [[South Korea]]
| [[Sri Lanka]]
| [[Taiwan]]
| [[Tajikistan]]
| [[Thailand]]

|- align="center"

| [[Uzbekistan]]
| [[Vietnam]]
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:yellowgreen; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Oceania'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Australia]]
| [[Fiji]]
| [[New Zealand]]
| [[Papua New Guinea]]
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:#FFFF66; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''North America'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Canada]]
| [[United States]]
|
|
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:#FFFF66; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Caribbean'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Barbados]]
| [[Jamaica]]
| [[Trinidad and Tobago]]
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:Orange; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''Central America'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Costa Rica]]
| [[El Salvador]]
| [[Guatemala]]
| [[Honduras]]
| [[Mexico]]
| [[Nicaragua]]

|- align="center"
| [[Panama]]
|
|
|
|
|

|}

|}

{| style="background:Orange; color=white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" align="center" width="100%"
|- style="color=white" align="center"
| '''South America'''
|-
|

{| style="background:white" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"
|- align="center"
| [[Argentina]]
| [[Bolivia]]
| [[Brazil]]
| [[Chile]]
| [[Colombia]]
| [[Guyana]]

|- align="center"
| [[Peru]]
| [[Uruguay]]
| [[Venezuela]]
|
|

|}

|}

__NOTOC__

Chile (2005)

2009-02-26T20:46:07Z

Kajrozga:

'''This page is currently under construction (merger regulations have yet to be coded).'''

'''Score = 13'''

''Governed by:''
* Law 211 of 1973, as amended in 2005 (“the Antitrust Law”). <ref>Statute available from the Chilean National Economic Prosecutor, at http://www.fne.cl/?content=marco_juridico</ref>
* Guia Interna Para Analisis de Operaciones de Concentracion Horizontales ("Merger Guidelines").<ref>Guidelines available from the National Economic Prosecutor, at http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fne.cl%2F&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=es&tl=en (Google translation of download page - the guidelines themselves are only available in Spanish.)</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Article 26(c) provides for fines of up to 20,000 Annual Tax Units for corporations and their directors, managers, and responsible employees.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Article 26 permits the Free Competition Defense Court to order the dissolution of companies and partnerships violating the act.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Articles 18 and 20 allow private parties to initiate investigations and actions in the Free Competition Defense Court.

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 1
| Article 30 states that a judgment in the Free Competition Defense Court primes a civil suit.

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 0
|

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 0
|

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Article 3(b) bans a dominant enterprise from establishing quotas.

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 3b prohibits abusing a dominant position.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Articles 3b(high prices) and 3c(predatory pricing) prohibit price setting.

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 0
|

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 1
| Article 3b bans setting buying or selling prices.

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 1
| Article 3c bans predatory pricing or other tactics to gain, keep, or increase dominance.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 3(a) prohibits price fixing.

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Article 3(b) prohibits tying arrangements.

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Article 3(a) prohibits market division

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 3(b) prohibits output restraint.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 0
|

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 0
|

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 0
|

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|}

== References ==
<references />

Tajikistan (November 29, 2000)

2009-02-26T20:25:03Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 20'''

''Governed by:'' Law of the Tajik Republic on Competition and Restriction of Monopolistic Activities on Goods Markets, enacted November 29, 2000.
<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/asia/Tajikistan/leg1.pdf (own translation)</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Art. 2 extends scope to actions outside Tajik borders

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Art. 16 provides for fines

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Art. 5, 13 allow dissolution through judicial process

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 0
|

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 0
|

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Art. 11 requires submission to antimonopoly auth.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
| Art. 11 requires prior consent

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Art. 11 considers restriction of competition

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Art. 4 prohibits removing goods from circulation

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Art. 4 prohibits dominant acts that infringe on interests of other economic agents generally

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Art. 4 prohibits price setting

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Art. 4 prohibits discriminatory pricing

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 1
| Art. 4 prohibits creating obstacles to entry

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Art. 5 prohibits price fixing

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Art. 4 prohibits tying

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Art. 5 prohibits market division

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 0
|

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| Art. 5 prohibits market division based on buyers

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| Art. 5 prohibits limiting competition

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| Art. 5 prohibits collusive tendering, bid rigging

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 1
| Art. 5 prohibits supply refusal

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|}

== References ==
<references />

Trinidad and Tobago, 2007

2009-02-26T20:24:32Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 20'''

''Governed by:'' Fair Trading Act of 2006
<ref>statute at http://webopac.ttlawcourts.org/LN/LN2007/LN98_07.pdf</ref>, enacted in 2007<ref>proclamation at http://webopac.ttlawcourts.org/LN/LN2007/LN98_07.pdf</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Section 44(2) provides for fines of up to 10% of corporate turnover.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Section 16 permits divestitures of improperly merged entities.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Section 7(A) allows third parties to initiate proceedings.

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 1
| Section 17(4) allows injured third parties actions for damages.

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 1
| Section 8(2) affords parties likely to be affected by decisions the right to be heard at proceedings.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Section 14(1) requires certain companies to seek Commission approval before they merge.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
| Section 14(1) requires certain companies to seek Commission approval before they merge.

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| Section 14 states that companies with large sales volumes must seek Commission approval before merging.

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Section 14(3) says that mergers that don't restrict competition may be approved.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 1
| Article 14(3) says that mergers which do not harm the public may be approved.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Section 21(2)(e)prohibits limiting production.

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 21(1) prohibits the abuse of a dominant position.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Article 21(2)(d) bans price setting.

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 0
|

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 1
| Article 21(2)(a) bans creation of obstacles to entry. Article 21(c) bans eliminating competitors.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 21(3)permits otherwise abusive behavior if it increases efficiency and passes some of the benefits to consumers.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 17(1)(A)prohibits price fixing.

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Article 17(1)(e) bans tying.

|-
|
| Market Division
| 0
|

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 17(1)(b) prohibits limiting markets.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| Article 17(1)(c) prohibits market sharing

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| Section 17(2) prohibits any agreement aimed at reducing competition.

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 0
|

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|}

== References ==
<references />

Kyrgystan (April 15, 1994)

2009-02-24T15:43:17Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 24'''

''Governed by:'' Law of the Kyrgyz Republic on Restriction of Monopolistic Activities, Development and Protection of Competition, dated April, 1994.
<ref>Kyrgyz Competition Authority website, http://www.kyrgyzpatent.kg/russian/legislation/zakon/ogr_mon_deit.htm (own translation)</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Art. 2 extends scope to foreign companies conducting business within Kyrgyz markets

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Art. 11 allows for fines

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 1
| Art. 11 allows for criminal proceedings

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Art. 18 allows for divestitures

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Art. 22(2) allows for 3rd party civil suits

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 1
| Art. 22(2) allows for 3rd party recovery

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Art. 15 requires petitioning antimonopoly authority

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
| Art. 15 requires advance consent

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| Art. 15(3) considers dominant position

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Art. 15(3) considers limiting competition

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 1
| Art. 15(3) allows for public interest defense

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 1
| Art. 15(3) allows for efficiency defense

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Art. 6(1) prohibits limiting supply

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Art. 6(1) prohibits dominant acts that infringe on the interests of others generally

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Art. 6(1) prohibits price setting

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Art. 6(1) prohibits discriminatory pricing

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 1
| Art. 6(1) prohibits creating obstacles to the market

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Art. 6(2) allows for an efficiency defense

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Art. 7(1) prohibits price fixing

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Art. 6(1) prohibits tying

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Art. 7(1) prohibits market division

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 0
|

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| Art. 7(1) prohibits dividing a market based on buyers

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| Art. 7(1) prohibits eliminating economic agents from the market

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| Art. 7(1) prohibits collusive tendering, bid rigging

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 1
| Art. 7(1) prohibits supply refusal

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Art. 7(3) allows for an efficiency defense

|}

== References ==
<references />

Jersey Channel Islands 2005

2009-02-19T21:21:36Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 20'''

''Governed by:'' Jersey Competition Law of 2005, effective November 1, 2005.
<ref>http://www.jcra.je/pdf/051101%20Competition-Jersey-Law--2005.pdf</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Article 1 defines “company” as any body incorporated in any part of the world

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Article 39 provides for financial penalties

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Article 38(3)(c) allows divestitures

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Article 51 allows for initiation of civil suits

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 1
| Article 51(3) allows for damages

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Article 20(2) requires approval for merger to be effective

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
| Article 20 requires pre-clearance

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Article 22(4) considers effect of merger on competition

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 1
| Article 23 allows for a public interest defense

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Article 16(2)(b) prohibits limiting markets

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 16(1) prohibits abuse of a dominant position

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Article 16(2)(a) prohibits price setting

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Articles 8(2)(d) and prohibit discriminatory pricing

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 18 allows for the an efficiency defense

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 8(2)(a) prohibits price fixing

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Articles 8(2)(e) and 16(2)(d) prohibit tying

|-
|
| Market Division
| 0
|

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 8(2)(b) prohibits limiting production

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| Article 8(2)(c) prohibits market sharing

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| Article 8(1) prohibits arrangements that restrict competition

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 0
|

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 1
| Article 8(2)(b) prohibits limiting or controlling markets

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 9 allows for an efficiency defense

|}

== References ==
<references />

Iceland (March 27, 2007)

2009-02-19T21:21:06Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 21'''

''Governed by:'' The Competition Act, Law No. 44, May 19, 2005 (“Competition Act”) as amended March 27, 2007.<ref>Statue and Amendment available from Iceland's competition authority, http://www.samkeppni.is/en/legislation</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Article 3 says that the Act applies to conduct which has or is intended to have an effect on Iceland..

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Articles 37-39 and 42 provide for fines.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 1
| Articles 41 and 42 allow for prison sentences.
|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Articles 16 allows the Competition Authority to impose structural remedies for abuse of dominance and restrictive agreements. Article 17 allows for divestiture for anticompetitive mergers.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Third parties may file formal complaints to the Competition Authority. However, the Authority is not obliged to open investigations.

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 0
|

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Article 17 requires notification of a merger for large companies.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
| Article 17 requires that notification occur within a week of the conclusion of the merger or the announcement of the bid.

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| Article 17 says that the Competition Council can deem that a merger obstructs effective competition if it creates or strengthens a dominant position.

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Article 17 states that mergers which restrict competition are prohibited.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 1
| Article 17 requires the Competition Authority to consider the effects of international competition when deciding whether to permit a merger.

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Article 11(b) lists limiting production and markets to the prejudice of customers as an abusive act.

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 11 bans abusive acts by undertakings of a dominant position.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Article 11(a) lists price setting as an abusive act.

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Article 11(c) lists applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions as an abusive act.

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 1
| RPM is prohibited under Articles 10 and 11 <ref>see the Competition Authority's commentary on resale price maintenance agreements, at http://www.samkeppni.is/en/collusion/</ref>.

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 10(a) prohibits price fixing.

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Articles 10(e) and 11(d) prohibit tying arrangements.

|-
|
| Market Division
| 0
|

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 10(b) prohibits limiting production.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| Article 10(c) prohibits market sharing.

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 0
|

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| Collusive tendering is prohibited under Article 10 <ref>see the Competition Authority's website on cartel behavior, at http://www.samkeppni.is/en/collusion/</ref>.

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 15 exempts from Article 10 agreements that contribute to improving the production or distribution of goods and promoting economic or technological progress.

|}

== References ==
<references />

Canada

2009-02-13T14:59:26Z

Kajrozga:

*[[Canada (August 23, 2000)]]
*[[Canada (December 15, 1975)]]
*[[Canada (August 10, 1960)]]
*[[Canada (July 4, 1952)]]
*Canada, (July 5, 1935) - an amendment to the Combines Investigation Act<ref>the amendment, the Combines Investigation Act Amendment Act, 1935, is in Statutes of Canada, 1935 Chap. 54.</ref> was passed, and changed the numbering of the restraint of trade clauses, but did not change the 1923 scoring.
*[[Canada (June 13, 1923)]]
*[[Canada (May 4, 1910)]]
*[[Canada, (May 2, 1889)]]

''For a good discussion of the history of Canadian competition law, see http://www.apeccp.org.tw/doc/Canada/Policy/1c.pdf''

== References ==
<references />

Trinidad and Tobago

2009-02-13T14:54:07Z

Kajrozga:

[[Trinidad and Tobago, 2007]]

== References ==
<references />

Barbados

2009-02-13T14:52:58Z

Kajrozga:

== Competition Statutes ==
*[[Barbados 2002|Barbados Fair Competition Act]]

== Enforcement Agencies ==
*Fair Trading Commission<ref>http://www.ftc.gov.bb/</ref>

----
<references />

Predatory Pricing Report

2009-02-07T14:45:41Z

Kajrozga:

{| class="wikitable"

|-
! Country
! Predatory Pricing Prohibition
! Comment

|-
| Albania
| 1
| Article 9(2)(d) of Law No. 9121, dated July 28, 2003 on Competition Protection prohibits "the undercutting of prices or other conditions which have as their object or effect the prevention of entry or the expulsion from the market for specific competitor(s) or one of their products . . . ."

|-
| Algeria
| 1
| § 3(16) of the OECD report on Competition Law and Policy in Algeria indicates they prohibit predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/50/26369606.pdf</ref>

|-
| Angola
|0
|

|-
| Argentina
| 0
|

|-
| Armenia
| 0
|

|-
| Australia
| 1
| "Predatory pricing is unlawful under § 46(1) of the Trade Practices Act." <ref> Australian Competition and Consumer Commission web site, http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/322986/fromItemId/3669</ref>

|-
| Austria
| 1
| §31(1)(5) of the Federal Act of 19 October 1988 on Cartels and other Restrictive Trade Practices prohibits the sale of goods below cost price when it cannot be justified on material grounds.

|-
| Azerbaijan
| 0
|

|-
| Bangladesh
| 0
| ''Bangladesh has no competition law in force.''

|-
| Barbados
| 1
| Article 16(3)(d) of the Fair Competition Act (2002) prohibits enterprise actions which "directly or indirectly imposes unfair purchase or selling prices that are excessive, unreasonable, discriminatory or predatory ..."<ref>http://www.commerce.gov.bb/Legislation/Documents/Fair%20Competition%20Act,%20Cap%20326C.pdf</ref>

|-
| Belarus
| 1
| Article 5 prohibits "fixing or maintaining prices (underpinning the market) for deriving monopolistic high profit or removal of competitors ..."<ref>http://law.by/work/EnglPortal.nsf/6e1a652fbefce34ac2256d910056d559/4dd2237ccbd3b4e6c2256dc1002932c6?OpenDocument</ref><ref>World Bank, Competition Law Database, http://go.worldbank.org/SMDO288DV0</ref>

|-
| Belgium
| 1
| Articles 40-41 of The Commercial Practices Act of July 14, 1991 forbid reselling products at a loss.<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-518)</ref>

|-
| Bolivia
| 0
|

|-
| Bosnia-Herzegovina
| 1
| Act on Competition of 2005 is supplemented by the Regulation on Definition of a Dominant Position of 2006. Article 9(c) of this by-law prohibits "fixing a price of the product or service below the production costs with the view to eliminate the competitors."<ref>http://www.bihkonk.gov.ba/en/laws/low_on_competition_new.pdf</ref>

|-
| Brazil
| 1
| Article 21(18) of Law # 8884 OF JUNE 11, 1994 prohibits a dominant from to unreasonably sell products below cost.

|-
| Bulgaria
| 0
| Bulgaria prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Burkina Faso
| 0
|

|-
| Canada
| 1
| § 50(1)(c) of Competition Act of August 23, 2000 prohibits engaging in "a policy of selling products at prices unreasonably low, having the effect or tendency of substantially lessening competition or eliminating a competitor."

|-
| Cambodia
| 0
|

|-
| Cameroon
| 0
|

|-
| Chile
| 1
| The Antitrust Commission has fined firms for engaging in predatory pricing.<ref>Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, Competition Law and Policy in Chile, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/53/24955980.pdf and Global Competition Review website, http://globalcompetitionreview.com/ara/chile.cfm</ref>

|-
| China
| 1
| Law of the People’s Republic of China for Countering Unfair Competition of September 2, 1993 states that "an operator shall not sell its or his goods at a price that is below the cost for the purpose of excluding its or his competitors."

|-
| Colombia
| 1
| Prohibited by article 67 of Law no. 108/05 of May 3, 2006.<ref>http://go.worldbank.org/7P3DRBYZI0</ref>

|-
| Costa Rica
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Cote d'Ivoire
| 0
| Article 24 of Law No. 91-999 of December 27, 1991 on Competition prohibits loss leader selling, but not predatory pricing. <ref>Report on United Nations Conference on Trade and development of 24 November 1997, available at, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2emd11.pdf</ref>

|-
| Croatia
| 0
| No evidence was found of a predatory pricing provision in the Competition Act of July 15, 2003. The Croatian Law on the Protection of Market Competition of July 14, 1995 did prohibit predatory pricing, however. <ref> USAID Croatia Commercial Law Assessment Report, March 2002, http://www.bizlawreform.com/country_assess/Croatia%20Assessment.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Cyprus
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Czech Republic
| 1
| Article 11(1)(e) of the Consolidated Act on the Protection of Competition, ACT No. 143/2001 Coll. of April 4 2001 last amended by Act No. 484/2004 Coll. of 5 August 2004, prohibits by a Dominant firm "consistent offer and sale of goods for unfairly low prices, which results or may result in distortion of competition." <ref>http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2clp50_en.pdf; http://www.compet.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/Legislativa/legislativa_EN/Act_143_2004.doc</ref>

|-
| Denmark
| 1
| The Danish Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Supervision Act of 1955 forbids predatory pricing.<ref>Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/54/2375661.pdf (p. 33)</ref>

|-
| Dominican Republic
| 0
|

|-
| Ecuador
| 0
|

|-
| Egypt
| 1
| Article 8(h) of the Law on the Protection of Competition and the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices prohibits selling products below their marginal cost or average variable cost.

|-
| El Salvador
| 1
| Article 30(c) - "The systematic reduction of prices, below the cost price, with the purpose of eliminating one or several competitors, or impeding the entry or expansion of the same."<ref>http://www.minec.gob.sv/leyes/LeydeCompetencia_english_.pdf</ref>

|-
| Estonia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| EU Generally<ref>Information for this section has been gleaned from '''The EC law of Competition''' (eds. Jonathan Faull and Ali Nikpay)</ref>
| 1
| Article 82 (formerly Article 86) of the EC Treaty prohibits predatory pricing. The Commission began prosecuting predatory pricing in 1985, in the ''AKZO'' case.<ref>''AKZO'' [1985] OJ L374/1.</ref> This case led to the establishment of a two-pronged test for predatory pricing. A firm was guilty of the offense if it either:
# Sets the price at below average variable cost. This amounts to a per se assumption of abusive behavior.
# Sets the price at below average total cost, but above average variable cost. This is also assumed to be predatory, but requires a specific plan by the firm to eliminate competitors.

|-
| Faroe Island
| 0
|

|-
| Fiji
| 1
| The Commerce Commission "reserves its right to investigate any predatory pricing in breach
of section 37 of the Fair Trading Decree 1992." <ref>Official government sources: http://www.fiji.gov.fj/publish/page_7074.shtml; http://www.commcomm.gov.fj/docs/061001-postFijiDetermination.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Finland
| 1
| Article 7(4) of the Act on Competition Restrictions (480/1992) makes, "a pricing practice which is unreasonable or obviously aimed at restricting competition" an abuse of a dominant position.<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. II-363-64)</ref>

|-
| France
|1
| French Competition Act (Ordinance no. 86-1243 of December 1, 1986 (amended July 9, 1999)
"Article 10-1: Price offers or price practices with respect to consumer sales prices that are abusively low in relation to the costs of production, transformation, and marketing are prohibited, since these offers or practices have as their purpose, or may have as their effect, to eliminate from a market or to prevent access to a market by an enterprise or one of its products."

(Note: This Article has been used only rarely by enforcement agencies.) <ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-190)</ref>

|-
| Germany
|1
| § 20(4) of Act Against Restraints of Competition, as amended August 26 1998, states that dominant firms cannot use their market power to hinder competitors in an "unfair manner," which occurs when a firm "offers goods or services not merely occasionally below its cost price . . . ."<ref>http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/europe/Germany/Act%20Against%20Restrainst%20of%20Competition.pdf</ref>

|-
| Georgia
|0
|

|-
| Greece
| 1
| As of August 3, 2000, Courts have interpreted predatory pricing as an abuse of a dominant position.<ref>Competition Law in the EU, p. 605 (citing Competition Commission Decisions 232/95 P.Lambropoulos&Co. Priv. Partn.; 264/95 Protoporia Publications Litd.</ref>

|-
| Greenland
|0
|

|-
| Guatemala
| 1
| Article 341 of the Criminal Code, Decree No. 17-73, prohibits "the sale of goods of any kind at a price below their cost, in order to prevent free competition in the domestic market."<ref>FTAA report, Inventory of Domestic Laws and Regulations relating to Competition Policy in the Western Hemisphere, March 22, 2002, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp</ref>

|-
| Guyana
|0
|

|-
| Honduras
| 1
|Article 7(6) prohibits the fixing of prices below cost to eliminate competitors. <ref>http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:21326341~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html</ref>

|-
| Hong Kong
| 1
| Article 7(a) of The Competition Policy Advisory Group Statement on Competition Policy, May 1998 lists predatory pricing as an example of an abuse of a dominant position.

|-
| Hungary
| 1
| Article 21(h) of Act LVII of 1996 on the Prohibition of Unfair and Restrictive Market Practices as amended, effective November 1, 2005 makes it prohibited to "set extremely low prices which are not based on greater efficiency in comparison with that of competitors and which are likely to drive out competitors from the relevant market or to hinder their market entry[.]" The prohibition on predatory pricing, however, can be traced back to the original draft of the Act, as entered into force January 1 1997.<ref>ANNUAL REPORT ON COMPETITION LAW AND POLICY DEVELOPMENTS IN HUNGARY at p. 5, published by the Hungarian Comeptition Authority, 1998. Viewable at www.gvh.hu/domain2/files/modules/module25/pdf/GVH_OGy_beszamolo_1997_a.pdf</ref>

|-
| Iceland
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing was found in the statute. Moreover, predatory pricing has been reported as an ongoing practice by certain firms.<ref>http://www.icelandexpress.com/about_us/press/2004/ice_wars_icelandairs_dirty_trick_campaign_takes_a_different_turn/</ref>

|-
| India
| 1
| § 4(2)(ii) of the The Competition Act, 2002, No. 12 of 2003 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Indonesia
| 1
| Article 21 of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5 of 1999 has been interpreted to forbid dominant firms from imposing predatory pricing.<ref>East Asia Competition Policy Forum reports, http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/01/indonesia_progress_sutrisno.030503.pdf, http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/01/pprs.pdf; Also see United Nation Conference on Trade and Development report of January 29 2002, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2clp25.en.pdf </ref> Article 7 explicitly prohibits predatory pricing agreements between firms.

|-
| Ireland
| 0
| The enforcement agency has investigated an alleged abuse of predatory pricing, but found it did not constitute an abuse and was instead, "intense competition."<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/50/37028481.pdf, 12</ref>

|-
| Iran
| 0
|

|-
| Israel
| 1
| The Restrictive Trade Practices Law 5748 of 1988 prohibits "excessive or predatory pricing of the product under
a monopoly."<ref>http://www.lexmundi.com/images/lexmundi/PDF/guide_israel.pdf</ref>

|-
| Italy
| 0
| Italy has no prohibition on predatory pricing. However, "it is foreseeable that the same principles set forth in EC law to prohibit predatory price cutting by a dominant undertaking may be applied."<ref>Competition Law in the EU, Vol. 1, 384.</ref>

|-
| Jamaica
| 0
|

|-
| Japan
| 0
| Japan prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Jersey, Channel Islands
| 0
| Jersey prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Jordan
| 0
| Prohibited by Articles 6.A and 6.C of the Competition Law of 2004.<ref>World Bank Competition Law Database: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:21001779~menuPK:2137510~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html</ref>

|-
| Kazakhstan
| 1
| Article 10(1)of the 2006 Law of the Republic of Kazahkstan on Competition and Restriction of Monopolistic Activities<ref>Statute provided from the World Bank at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCOMPLEGALDB/Resources/CompetitivenesandMonopolyRestrictionLaw20060707_eng.pdf</ref> prohibits excessively low price setting.

|-
| Kenya
| 1
| Article 10(3)(a) of The Restrictive Trade Practices, Monopolies and Price Control Act of 1990 prohibits selling below average variable cost.

|-
| Kyrgystan
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Lao PDR
| 0
|

|-
| Latvia
| 0
| Latvia has no explicit prohibition on predatory pricing. However, "[p]redatory pricing by definition as a practice aimed at hindrance, restriction or distortion of competition would qualify as an abuse of dominant position.<ref>Dace Silava-Tomsone, Getting the Deal Through – Dominance 2006, http://www.lt-v.lv/pdf/Latvia_dace.pdf</ref>

|-
| Lithuania
| 1
| Lithuania's competition authority includes predatory pricing in its definition of an abuse of a dominant position. This definition is found in a May 17 2000 intra-agency bylaw,<ref>http://www.konkuren.lt/english/antitrust/legislation_resoliution_52.htm</ref> a supplement to their more general competition legislation.<ref>http://www.konkuren.lt/english/antitrust/legislation.htm</ref>

|-
| Luxembourg
| 1
| Below cost selling of goods and services is prohibited under the Act on Commercial Practices, Unfair Competition and Comparative Advertising (July 2002).<ref>http://www.entemp.ie/publications/commerce/2005/groceriesorder/chapter9.pdf</ref>

|-
| Malawi
| 1
| Article 32(2)(a) of the Malawi Competition and Fair Trading Bill of 1998 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Mali
| 1
| Article 17 of Ordonnance N°92-021/P-CTSP Instituant la Liberte des Prix et de la Concurrence, dated April 13, 1992 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Malta
| 1
| Article 9(2)(b) of Chapter 379 Competition Act of February 1 1995 forbids "charg[ing] prices which are below the average variable cost price of a product in order to drive rival competitors out of the market[.]"

|-
| Mauritius
| 1
| Article 11(2)(a) of The Competition Bill N° VI of 2003 prohibits below-cost selling by a dominant firm.

|-
| Macedonia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Mexico
| 1
| Article 7 of the Regulations of the Federal Law on Economic Competition of March 4, 1998 prohibits price setting below market price.

|-
| Moldova
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Mongolia
| 1
| Article 4(3) of the Law of Mongolia on Prohibiting Unfair Competition prohibits a firm from selling own goods at a price lower than the cost.

|-
| Morocco
| 1
| Article 7 of Dahir no. 1-00-225 of 2 rabil I 1421 promulgating law no. 06-99, concerning freedom of prices and competition, prohibits pricing offers or abusive practices in pricing sales to consumers that are low compared to production costs, distribution costs, and promotion costs, when these offers or practices are meant to or may have the effect of eliminating a market.

|-
| Namibia
| 0
|

|-
| Netherlands
| 0
| Dutch law does not forbid resale at a loss, either. <ref>Competition Law in the EU, Vol. 1, 445.</ref>

|-
| New Zealand
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that New Zealand's general test for predatory pricing is similar to the US, in that they ask, "is there below-cost price cutting with a view to recouping losses without loss of market share by raising prices without fear of reprisals afterwards?"<ref>http://www.luc.edu/law/academics/special/center/antitrust/pdfs/berry_nz_summary.pdf</ref>

|-
| Nicaragua
| 1
| Article 19(h) prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.dgpsa.gob.ni/biblioteca/biblioteca_archivos/449/Ley%20601.%20Ley%20%20de%20promocion%20de%20la%20competencia..pdf</ref>

|-
| Nigeria
| 0
|

|-
| Norway
| 1
| Though unclear which specific provision it uses, the Norwegin Competition Authority has recently held numerous proceedings for predatory pricing violations.<ref>http://sec.edgar-online.com/2005/04/15/0001156973-05-000475/Section4.asp; http://competition.practicallaw.com/7-201-3648; http://ld.practicallaw.com/4-208-8975</ref>.

|-
| Pakistan
| 0
|

|-
| Panama
| 1
| "Any predatory action taken unilaterally . . . when said action cannot reasonably be expected to generate or increase earnings, but rather to encourage the competitor or potential competitor to stop competing . . . leaving the agent with substantial power or in a monopolistic position . . ."<ref>FTAA - Negotiating Group on Competition Policy Inventory of Domestic Laws and Regulations relating to Competition Policy in the Western Hemisphere, March 22 2002, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp</ref>

|-
| Papua and New Guinea
| 0
|

|-
| Paraguay
| 0
|

|-
| Philippines
| 0
|

|-
| Peru
| 1
| The Competition Policy Commission initiated proceedings for predatory pricing in ''Tabacalera Nacional S.A. against British American Tabacco (South America) Limited – Perú''.<ref>OECD Global Forum on Competition CONTRIBUTION FROM PERU, October 4 2001, http://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=Predatory_Pricing_Report&action=edit</ref>

|-
| Poland
| 1
| Article 15.1(1) of the The Act on Combating Unfair Competition of April 16 1993 prohibits "the sale of goods or services below their purchase cost in order to eliminate other entrepreneurs."<ref>http://www.uokik.gov.pl/download/Z2Z4L3Vva2lrL2VuL2RlZmF1bHRfb3Bpc3kudjAvNTIvMS8xLzIwMDdfMDFfMTZfdXpua19fZW5nbGlzaF92ZXJzaW9uLnBkZg</ref> Article 8(2)(1) of The Act on Protection of Competition and Consumers of December 15 2000 prohibits "direct or indirect imposition of unfair prices, including predatory prices or prices glaringly low."<ref>http://www.konsument.gov.pl/files/ccp_act.pdf</ref>

|-
| Portugal
| 1
| Decree-Law 370/93 of October 29, 1993 (as amended by Decree-Law 140/98 on May 16 1998) forbids selling goods at a price below the actual price of purchase (plus taxes and transportation costs).<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-326)</ref>

|-
| Romania
| 1
| Article 6(f) of The Parliament of Romania Competition Law of 1996 explicitly prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Russia
| 1
| Article 7 of Law no. 135 on the Protection of Competition prohibits a dominant firm from setting a price that is lower than the sum of expenses necessary for production and sale of the commodity.

|-
| Saudi Arabia
| 1
| Article 5(1) of the Competition Law of 2004 prohibits "selling a commodity or service at a price below cost, with the intention of forcing competitors out of the market."

|-
| Senegal
| 0
|

|-
| Serbia-Montenegro
| 0
|

|-
| Singapore
| 1
| Singapore authorities have clarified that Article 47(2)(a) of No. 46 Competition Act of 2004 includes prohibition ofpredatory pricing.<ref>http://app.mti.gov.sg/default.asp?id=148&articleID=107; http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN025141.pdf</ref>

|-
| Slovak Republic
| 1
| The Slovak Republic forbids abusive acts by a dominant firm seeking to exclude competition.<ref>136/2001 Coll. ACT of 27 February 2001 on Protection of Competition and on Amendments and Supplements to Act of the Slovak National Council No. 347/1990 Coll. (Article 8(2)(e))</ref> The Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic (their enforcement agency) has used this provision to prosecute temporary predatory pricing of fuels as early as September 26 2001,<ref>Decision No. 2001/DZ/P/2/283 issued by Chairman of the Office on September 26, 2001 (http://www.antimon.gov.sk/eng/article.aspx?c=395&a=2139</ref> but the decision was never given effect, as the defendant discontinued its pricing scheme.

|-
| Slovenia
| 0
| No predatory pricing provision found. Office for Protection of Competition received one complaint of predatory pricing against Produkcija Plus d.o.o. - RTV Slovenia d.o.o. on 2/20/01. However, the complaint was dismissed (Office did not rule on the merits).<ref>http://www.uvk.gov.si/fileadmin/uvk.gov.si/pageuploads/Enforcement_Record_2001.pdf</ref>

|-
| South Africa
| 1
| Section 8(d)(iv) of the South African Competition Act 89 of 1998 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| South Korea
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that predatory pricing is prohibited.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=9aSrAg57v-oC&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq=korea+predatory+pricing&source=web&ots=Ha4I_DL5gr&sig=uPTcGF0DqgytzhKgN4wMY9_J0KcDeregulation Deregulation and Interdependence in the Asia-Pacific Region by Anne O. Krueger, Takatoshi Itō]</ref>

|-
| Spain
| 1
| There are two cases where the courts have issued fines for predatory pricing:

1. General Electric Espana[20], December 30 1991, - GE's local affiliate was fined Pta 15 million (~90,000 euros)<ref>TDC Dec. 295/91, or December 30, 1991</ref>

2. Arbora/Ausonia, January 7 1992<ref>TDC Dec. 291/90, January 7, 1992</ref>

Predatory pricing, presumably, is covered by common law because there is no mention of it in the Spanish competition laws.

Note: More recently, Telefónica, a Spanish firm, was fined by £102.6m (€152m) by the EU competition agency.<ref>http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/government-law/legislation/news/index.cfm?newsid=3865</ref>

|-
| Sri Lanka
| 1
| Anti-competitive practices prohibited by the Fair Trading Commission Act No. 1 of 1987 includes predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/articles/sri_lankan/HTML/CV39.html</ref>In Ceylon Oxygen Co. Ltd. V. Fair Trading Commission And Another, the Commission considered a predatory pricing complaint.<ref>http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/case_law/slr/HTML/1997SLR2V372.htm</ref>

|-
| Sweden
| 0
| No predatory pricing provision found.

|-
| Switzerland
| 1
| Article 7(2) of the Federal Act on Cartels and Other Restraints of Competition of October 6, 1995 prohibits "the under-cutting of prices or other conditions directed against a specific competitor."

|-
| Taiwan
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that competition law in Taiwan stipulates that enterprises in dominant market positions should not improperly fix, maintain or change the price of the goods and services, and that ''predatory pricing definitely belongs to improperly fixing price''.<ref>http://www.jurist.org.cn/doc/uclaw200512/uclaw20051206.pdf</ref>

|-
| Tajikistan
| 1
| Article 4 prohibits a dominant firm from setting low prices.

|-
| Tanzania
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Thailand
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that predatory pricing is an unfair practice under Thai Guidelines.<ref>http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/05/APECTrainingProgramDecember2004/Kalampakorn_Thai.pdf</ref>

|-
| Tunisia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Turkey
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Ukraine
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| United Kingdom
| 1
| Chapter II of the Fair Trading Act of 1973 prohibits predatory pricing. The OFT has published the following guidelines to assess whether pricing schemes are predatory:<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. II-63)</ref>

{| class="wikitable"

|-
| Price below average variable cost
| Predation can be assumed

|-
| Price below average variable cost but below average total cost
| Evidence on costs may indicate predation but evidence required of intention to eliminate a competitor before predation could be found

|-
| Price above average total costs
| Evidence on costs does not indicate predation

|}

The Competition Act of 1980 is also at the disposal of the Director General of the Office of Free Trade (OFT) for the prohibition of predatory pricing.

|-
| United States
| 0
| Though predatory pricing is formally prohibited, the law in the United States is riddled with exceptions that effectively eliminate the predatory pricing prohibition. The "recoupment test" is a notable example.<ref>See ''Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.'', 509 U.S. 209 (1993)</ref>

|-
| Uruguay
| 1
| Article 3(2)(c) of the Law of the Defense of the Competition prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>See Law of the Defense of the Competition, http://www.sice.oas.org/compol/natleg/Uruguay/dec1503.asp#DECRETO</ref>

|-
| Uzbekistan
| 1
| Article 5 prohibits a firm from setting a monopolistic low price, which is defined as the price of a good consciously set by the undertaking, with dominant position in the market as a seller, at a level bringing the losses from sale of a given good, result of which is or may be the restriction of competition by means of driving the competitors out of the market.

|-
| Venezuela
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found. Moreover, a secondary source suggests that no such prohibition exists.<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=2tsyQFzaj0UC&pg=RA1-PA349&lpg=RA1-PA349&dq=venezuela+predatory+pricing&source=web&ots=lrCQHugr38&sig=gol1a-LNF_pcCwR3vuIkFTIj1Rw</ref>

|-
| Vietnam
| 1
| Secondary source indicates Vietnam prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.freshfields.com/practice/comptrade/publications/pdf/10388.pdf</ref>

|-
| Zambia
| 1
| Article 7(2)(a) of The Competition and Fair Trading Act (1994) prohibits "predatory behaviour towards competition including the use of cost pricing to eliminate competitors."<ref>The Competition and Fair Trading Act (1994), http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/africa/Zambia/COMPETITION%20anDFAIR%20TRADING%20ACT.PDF</ref>

|-
| Zimbabwe
| 1
| Amendment 14 of 2001 to the The Competition Act of 1996 prohibits "[s]elling at very low prices or at below production costs as a deliberate strategy of driving competitors off the market."

|}

== References ==

<references />

Predatory Pricing Report

2009-02-07T14:08:58Z

Kajrozga:

{| class="wikitable"

|-
! Country
! Predatory Pricing Prohibition
! Comment

|-
| Albania
| 1
| Article 9(2)(d) of Law No. 9121, dated July 28, 2003 on Competition Protection prohibits "the undercutting of prices or other conditions which have as their object or effect the prevention of entry or the expulsion from the market for specific competitor(s) or one of their products . . . ."

|-
| Algeria
| 1
| § 3(16) of the OECD report on Competition Law and Policy in Algeria indicates they prohibit predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/50/26369606.pdf</ref>

|-
| Angola
|0
|

|-
| Argentina
| 0
|

|-
| Armenia
| 0
|

|-
| Australia
| 1
| "Predatory pricing is unlawful under § 46(1) of the Trade Practices Act." <ref> Australian Competition and Consumer Commission web site, http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/322986/fromItemId/3669</ref>

|-
| Austria
| 1
| §31(1)(5) of the Federal Act of 19 October 1988 on Cartels and other Restrictive Trade Practices prohibits the sale of goods below cost price when it cannot be justified on material grounds.

|-
| Azerbaijan
| 0
|

|-
| Bangladesh
| 0
| ''Bangladesh has no competition law in force.''

|-
| Barbados
| 1
| Article 16(3)(d) of the Fair Competition Act (2002) prohibits enterprise actions which "directly or indirectly imposes unfair purchase or selling prices that are excessive, unreasonable, discriminatory or '''predatory''' ..."<ref>http://www.commerce.gov.bb/Legislation/Documents/Fair%20Competition%20Act,%20Cap%20326C.pdf</ref>

|-
| Belarus
| 1
| Article 5 prohibits "fixing or maintaining prices (underpinning the market) for deriving monopolistic high profit or removal of competitors ..."<ref>http://law.by/work/EnglPortal.nsf/6e1a652fbefce34ac2256d910056d559/4dd2237ccbd3b4e6c2256dc1002932c6?OpenDocument</ref><ref>World Bank, Competition Law Database, http://go.worldbank.org/SMDO288DV0</ref>

|-
| Belgium
| 1
| Articles 40-41 of The Commercial Practices Act of July 14, 1991 forbid reselling products at a loss.<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-518)</ref>

|-
| Bolivia
| 0
|

|-
| Bosnia-Herzegovina
| 1
| Act on Competition of 2005 is supplemented by the Regulation on Definition of a Dominant Position of 2006. Article 9(c) of this by-law prohibits "fixing a price of the product or service below the production costs with the view to eliminate the competitors."<ref>http://www.bihkonk.gov.ba/en/laws/low_on_competition_new.pdf</ref>

|-
| Brazil
| 1
| Article 21(18) of Law # 8884 OF JUNE 11, 1994 prohibits a dominant from to unreasonably sell products below cost.

|-
| Bulgaria
| 0
| Bulgaria prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Burkina Faso
| 0
|

|-
| Canada
| 1
| § 50(1)(c) of Competition Act of August 23, 2000 prohibits engaging in "a policy of selling products at prices unreasonably low, having the effect or tendency of substantially lessening competition or eliminating a competitor."

|-
| Cambodia
| 0
|

|-
| Cameroon
| 0
|

|-
| Chile
| 1
| The Antitrust Commission has fined firms for engaging in predatory pricing.<ref>Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, Competition Law and Policy in Chile, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/53/24955980.pdf and Global Competition Review website, http://globalcompetitionreview.com/ara/chile.cfm</ref>

|-
| China
| 1
| Law of the People’s Republic of China for Countering Unfair Competition of September 2, 1993 states that "an operator shall not sell its or his goods at a price that is below the cost for the purpose of excluding its or his competitors."

|-
| Colombia
| 1
| Prohibited by article 67 of Law no. 108/05 of May 3, 2006.<ref>http://go.worldbank.org/7P3DRBYZI0</ref>

|-
| Costa Rica
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Cote d'Ivoire
| 0
| Article 24 of Law No. 91-999 of December 27, 1991 on Competition prohibits loss leader selling, but not predatory pricing. <ref>Report on United Nations Conference on Trade and development of 24 November 1997, available at, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2emd11.pdf</ref>

|-
| Croatia
| 0
| No evidence was found of a predatory pricing provision in the Competition Act of July 15, 2003. The Croatian Law on the Protection of Market Competition of July 14, 1995 did prohibit predatory pricing, however. <ref> USAID Croatia Commercial Law Assessment Report, March 2002, http://www.bizlawreform.com/country_assess/Croatia%20Assessment.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Cyprus
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Czech Republic
| 1
| Article 11(1)(e) of the Consolidated Act on the Protection of Competition, ACT No. 143/2001 Coll. of April 4 2001 last amended by Act No. 484/2004 Coll. of 5 August 2004, prohibits by a Dominant firm "consistent offer and sale of goods for unfairly low prices, which results or may result in distortion of competition." <ref>http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2clp50_en.pdf; http://www.compet.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/Legislativa/legislativa_EN/Act_143_2004.doc</ref>

|-
| Denmark
| 1
| The Danish Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Supervision Act of 1955 forbids predatory pricing.<ref>Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/54/2375661.pdf (p. 33)</ref>

|-
| Dominican Republic
| 0
|

|-
| Ecuador
| 0
|

|-
| Egypt
| 1
| Article 8(h) of the Law on the Protection of Competition and the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices prohibits selling products below their marginal cost or average variable cost.

|-
| El Salvador
| 1
| Article 30(c) - "The systematic reduction of prices, below the cost price, with the purpose of eliminating one or several competitors, or impeding the entry or expansion of the same."<ref>http://www.minec.gob.sv/leyes/LeydeCompetencia_english_.pdf</ref>

|-
| Estonia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| EU Generally<ref>Information for this section has been gleaned from '''The EC law of Competition''' (eds. Jonathan Faull and Ali Nikpay)</ref>
| 1
| Article 82 (formerly Article 86) of the EC Treaty prohibits predatory pricing. The Commission began prosecuting predatory pricing in 1985, in the ''AKZO'' case.<ref>''AKZO'' [1985] OJ L374/1.</ref> This case led to the establishment of a two-pronged test for predatory pricing. A firm was guilty of the offense if it either:
# Sets the price at below average variable cost. This amounts to a per se assumption of abusive behavior.
# Sets the price at below average total cost, but above average variable cost. This is also assumed to be predatory, but requires a specific plan by the firm to eliminate competitors.

|-
| Faroe Island
| 0
|

|-
| Fiji
| 1
| The Commerce Commission "reserves its right to investigate any predatory pricing in breach
of section 37 of the Fair Trading Decree 1992." <ref>Official government sources: http://www.fiji.gov.fj/publish/page_7074.shtml; http://www.commcomm.gov.fj/docs/061001-postFijiDetermination.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Finland
| 1
| Article 7(4) of the Act on Competition Restrictions (480/1992) makes, "a pricing practice which is unreasonable or obviously aimed at restricting competition" an abuse of a dominant position.<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. II-363-64)</ref>

|-
| France
|1
| French Competition Act (Ordinance no. 86-1243 of December 1, 1986 (amended July 9, 1999)
"Article 10-1: Price offers or price practices with respect to consumer sales prices that are abusively low in relation to the costs of production, transformation, and marketing are prohibited, since these offers or practices have as their purpose, or may have as their effect, to eliminate from a market or to prevent access to a market by an enterprise or one of its products."

(Note: This Article has been used only rarely by enforcement agencies.) <ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-190)</ref>

|-
| Germany
|1
| § 20(4) of Act Against Restraints of Competition, as amended August 26 1998, states that dominant firms cannot use their market power to hinder competitors in an "unfair manner," which occurs when a firm "offers goods or services not merely occasionally below its cost price . . . ."<ref>http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/europe/Germany/Act%20Against%20Restrainst%20of%20Competition.pdf</ref>

|-
| Georgia
|0
|

|-
| Greece
| 1
| As of August 3, 2000, Courts have interpreted predatory pricing as an abuse of a dominant position.<ref>Competition Law in the EU, p. 605 (citing Competition Commission Decisions 232/95 P.Lambropoulos&Co. Priv. Partn.; 264/95 Protoporia Publications Litd.</ref>

|-
| Greenland
|0
|

|-
| Guatemala
| 1
| Article 341 of the Criminal Code, Decree No. 17-73, prohibits "the sale of goods of any kind at a price below their cost, in order to prevent free competition in the domestic market."<ref>FTAA report, Inventory of Domestic Laws and Regulations relating to Competition Policy in the Western Hemisphere, March 22, 2002, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp</ref>

|-
| Guyana
|0
|

|-
| Honduras
| 1
|Article 7(6) prohibits the fixing of prices below cost to eliminate competitors. <ref>http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:21326341~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html</ref>

|-
| Hong Kong
| 1
| Article 7(a) of The Competition Policy Advisory Group Statement on Competition Policy, May 1998 lists predatory pricing as an example of an abuse of a dominant position.

|-
| Hungary
| 1
| Article 21(h) of Act LVII of 1996 on the Prohibition of Unfair and Restrictive Market Practices as amended, effective November 1, 2005 makes it prohibited to "set extremely low prices which are not based on greater efficiency in comparison with that of competitors and which are likely to drive out competitors from the relevant market or to hinder their market entry[.]" The prohibition on predatory pricing, however, can be traced back to the original draft of the Act, as entered into force January 1 1997.<ref>ANNUAL REPORT ON COMPETITION LAW AND POLICY DEVELOPMENTS IN HUNGARY at p. 5, published by the Hungarian Comeptition Authority, 1998. Viewable at www.gvh.hu/domain2/files/modules/module25/pdf/GVH_OGy_beszamolo_1997_a.pdf</ref>

|-
| Iceland
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing was found in the statute. Moreover, predatory pricing has been reported as an ongoing practice by certain firms.<ref>http://www.icelandexpress.com/about_us/press/2004/ice_wars_icelandairs_dirty_trick_campaign_takes_a_different_turn/</ref>

|-
| India
| 1
| § 4(2)(ii) of the The Competition Act, 2002, No. 12 of 2003 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Indonesia
| 1
| Article 21 of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5 of 1999 has been interpreted to forbid dominant firms from imposing predatory pricing.<ref>East Asia Competition Policy Forum reports, http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/01/indonesia_progress_sutrisno.030503.pdf, http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/01/pprs.pdf; Also see United Nation Conference on Trade and Development report of January 29 2002, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2clp25.en.pdf </ref> Article 7 explicitly prohibits predatory pricing agreements between firms.

|-
| Ireland
| 0
| The enforcement agency has investigated an alleged abuse of predatory pricing, but found it did not constitute an abuse and was instead, "intense competition."<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/50/37028481.pdf, 12</ref>

|-
| Iran
| 0
|

|-
| Israel
| 1
| The Restrictive Trade Practices Law 5748 of 1988 prohibits "excessive or predatory pricing of the product under
a monopoly."<ref>http://www.lexmundi.com/images/lexmundi/PDF/guide_israel.pdf</ref>

|-
| Italy
| 0
| Italy has no prohibition on predatory pricing. However, "it is foreseeable that the same principles set forth in EC law to prohibit predatory price cutting by a dominant undertaking may be applied."<ref>Competition Law in the EU, Vol. 1, 384.</ref>

|-
| Jamaica
| 0
|

|-
| Japan
| 0
| Japan prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Jersey, Channel Islands
| 0
| Jersey prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Jordan
| 0
| Prohibited by Articles 6.A and 6.C of the Competition Law of 2004.<ref>World Bank Competition Law Database: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:21001779~menuPK:2137510~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html</ref>

|-
| Kazakhstan
| 1
| Article 10(1)of the 2006 Law of the Republic of Kazahkstan on Competition and Restriction of Monopolistic Activities<ref>Statute provided from the World Bank at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCOMPLEGALDB/Resources/CompetitivenesandMonopolyRestrictionLaw20060707_eng.pdf</ref> prohibits excessively low price setting.

|-
| Kenya
| 1
| Article 10(3)(a) of The Restrictive Trade Practices, Monopolies and Price Control Act of 1990 prohibits selling below average variable cost.

|-
| Kyrgystan
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Lao PDR
| 0
|

|-
| Latvia
| 0
| Latvia has no explicit prohibition on predatory pricing. However, "[p]redatory pricing by definition as a practice aimed at hindrance, restriction or distortion of competition would qualify as an abuse of dominant position.<ref>Dace Silava-Tomsone, Getting the Deal Through – Dominance 2006, http://www.lt-v.lv/pdf/Latvia_dace.pdf</ref>

|-
| Lithuania
| 1
| Lithuania's competition authority includes predatory pricing in its definition of an abuse of a dominant position. This definition is found in a May 17 2000 intra-agency bylaw,<ref>http://www.konkuren.lt/english/antitrust/legislation_resoliution_52.htm</ref> a supplement to their more general competition legislation.<ref>http://www.konkuren.lt/english/antitrust/legislation.htm</ref>

|-
| Luxembourg
| 1
| Below cost selling of goods and services is prohibited under the Act on Commercial Practices, Unfair Competition and Comparative Advertising (July 2002).<ref>http://www.entemp.ie/publications/commerce/2005/groceriesorder/chapter9.pdf</ref>

|-
| Malawi
| 1
| Article 32(2)(a) of the Malawi Competition and Fair Trading Bill of 1998 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Mali
| 1
| Article 17 of Ordonnance N°92-021/P-CTSP Instituant la Liberte des Prix et de la Concurrence, dated April 13, 1992 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Malta
| 1
| Article 9(2)(b) of Chapter 379 Competition Act of February 1 1995 forbids "charg[ing] prices which are below the average variable cost price of a product in order to drive rival competitors out of the market[.]"

|-
| Mauritius
| 1
| Article 11(2)(a) of The Competition Bill N° VI of 2003 prohibits below-cost selling by a dominant firm.

|-
| Macedonia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Mexico
| 1
| Article 7 of the Regulations of the Federal Law on Economic Competition of March 4, 1998 prohibits price setting below market price.

|-
| Moldova
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Mongolia
| 1
| Article 4(3) of the Law of Mongolia on Prohibiting Unfair Competition prohibits a firm from selling own goods at a price lower than the cost.

|-
| Morocco
| 1
| Article 7 of Dahir no. 1-00-225 of 2 rabil I 1421 promulgating law no. 06-99, concerning freedom of prices and competition, prohibits pricing offers or abusive practices in pricing sales to consumers that are low compared to production costs, distribution costs, and promotion costs, when these offers or practices are meant to or may have the effect of eliminating a market.

|-
| Namibia
| 0
|

|-
| Netherlands
| 0
| Dutch law does not forbid resale at a loss, either. <ref>Competition Law in the EU, Vol. 1, 445.</ref>

|-
| New Zealand
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that New Zealand's general test for predatory pricing is similar to the US, in that they ask, "is there below-cost price cutting with a view to recouping losses without loss of market share by raising prices without fear of reprisals afterwards?"<ref>http://www.luc.edu/law/academics/special/center/antitrust/pdfs/berry_nz_summary.pdf</ref>

|-
| Nicaragua
| 1
| Article 19(h) prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.dgpsa.gob.ni/biblioteca/biblioteca_archivos/449/Ley%20601.%20Ley%20%20de%20promocion%20de%20la%20competencia..pdf</ref>

|-
| Nigeria
| 0
|

|-
| Norway
| 1
| Though unclear which specific provision it uses, the Norwegin Competition Authority has recently held numerous proceedings for predatory pricing violations.<ref>http://sec.edgar-online.com/2005/04/15/0001156973-05-000475/Section4.asp; http://competition.practicallaw.com/7-201-3648; http://ld.practicallaw.com/4-208-8975</ref>.

|-
| Pakistan
| 0
|

|-
| Panama
| 1
| "Any predatory action taken unilaterally . . . when said action cannot reasonably be expected to generate or increase earnings, but rather to encourage the competitor or potential competitor to stop competing . . . leaving the agent with substantial power or in a monopolistic position . . ."<ref>FTAA - Negotiating Group on Competition Policy Inventory of Domestic Laws and Regulations relating to Competition Policy in the Western Hemisphere, March 22 2002, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp</ref>

|-
| Papua and New Guinea
| 0
|

|-
| Paraguay
| 0
|

|-
| Philippines
| 0
|

|-
| Peru
| 1
| The Competition Policy Commission initiated proceedings for predatory pricing in ''Tabacalera Nacional S.A. against British American Tabacco (South America) Limited – Perú''.<ref>OECD Global Forum on Competition CONTRIBUTION FROM PERU, October 4 2001, http://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=Predatory_Pricing_Report&action=edit</ref>

|-
| Poland
| 1
| Article 15.1(1) of the The Act on Combating Unfair Competition of April 16 1993 prohibits "the sale of goods or services below their purchase cost in order to eliminate other entrepreneurs."<ref>http://www.uokik.gov.pl/download/Z2Z4L3Vva2lrL2VuL2RlZmF1bHRfb3Bpc3kudjAvNTIvMS8xLzIwMDdfMDFfMTZfdXpua19fZW5nbGlzaF92ZXJzaW9uLnBkZg</ref> Article 8(2)(1) of The Act on Protection of Competition and Consumers of December 15 2000 prohibits "direct or indirect imposition of unfair prices, including predatory prices or prices glaringly low."<ref>http://www.konsument.gov.pl/files/ccp_act.pdf</ref>

|-
| Portugal
| 1
| Decree-Law 370/93 of October 29, 1993 (as amended by Decree-Law 140/98 on May 16 1998) forbids selling goods at a price below the actual price of purchase (plus taxes and transportation costs).<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-326)</ref>

|-
| Romania
| 1
| Article 6(f) of The Parliament of Romania Competition Law of 1996 explicitly prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Russia
| 1
| Article 7 of Law no. 135 on the Protection of Competition prohibits a dominant firm from setting a price that is lower than the sum of expenses necessary for production and sale of the commodity.

|-
| Saudi Arabia
| 1
| Article 5(1) of the Competition Law of 2004 prohibits "selling a commodity or service at a price below cost, with the intention of forcing competitors out of the market."

|-
| Senegal
| 0
|

|-
| Serbia-Montenegro
| 0
|

|-
| Singapore
| 1
| Singapore authorities have clarified that Article 47(2)(a) of No. 46 Competition Act of 2004 includes prohibition ofpredatory pricing.<ref>http://app.mti.gov.sg/default.asp?id=148&articleID=107; http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN025141.pdf</ref>

|-
| Slovak Republic
| 1
| The Slovak Republic forbids abusive acts by a dominant firm seeking to exclude competition.<ref>136/2001 Coll. ACT of 27 February 2001 on Protection of Competition and on Amendments and Supplements to Act of the Slovak National Council No. 347/1990 Coll. (Article 8(2)(e))</ref> The Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic (their enforcement agency) has used this provision to prosecute temporary predatory pricing of fuels as early as September 26 2001,<ref>Decision No. 2001/DZ/P/2/283 issued by Chairman of the Office on September 26, 2001 (http://www.antimon.gov.sk/eng/article.aspx?c=395&a=2139</ref> but the decision was never given effect, as the defendant discontinued its pricing scheme.

|-
| Slovenia
| 0
| No predatory pricing provision found. Office for Protection of Competition received one complaint of predatory pricing against Produkcija Plus d.o.o. - RTV Slovenia d.o.o. on 2/20/01. However, the complaint was dismissed (Office did not rule on the merits).<ref>http://www.uvk.gov.si/fileadmin/uvk.gov.si/pageuploads/Enforcement_Record_2001.pdf</ref>

|-
| South Africa
| 1
| Section 8(d)(iv) of the South African Competition Act 89 of 1998 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| South Korea
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that predatory pricing is prohibited.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=9aSrAg57v-oC&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq=korea+predatory+pricing&source=web&ots=Ha4I_DL5gr&sig=uPTcGF0DqgytzhKgN4wMY9_J0KcDeregulation Deregulation and Interdependence in the Asia-Pacific Region by Anne O. Krueger, Takatoshi Itō]</ref>

|-
| Spain
| 1
| There are two cases where the courts have issued fines for predatory pricing:

1. General Electric Espana[20], December 30 1991, - GE's local affiliate was fined Pta 15 million (~90,000 euros)<ref>TDC Dec. 295/91, or December 30, 1991</ref>

2. Arbora/Ausonia, January 7 1992<ref>TDC Dec. 291/90, January 7, 1992</ref>

Predatory pricing, presumably, is covered by common law because there is no mention of it in the Spanish competition laws.

Note: More recently, Telefónica, a Spanish firm, was fined by £102.6m (€152m) by the EU competition agency.<ref>http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/government-law/legislation/news/index.cfm?newsid=3865</ref>

|-
| Sri Lanka
| 1
| Anti-competitive practices prohibited by the Fair Trading Commission Act No. 1 of 1987 includes predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/articles/sri_lankan/HTML/CV39.html</ref>In Ceylon Oxygen Co. Ltd. V. Fair Trading Commission And Another, the Commission considered a predatory pricing complaint.<ref>http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/case_law/slr/HTML/1997SLR2V372.htm</ref>

|-
| Sweden
| 0
| No predatory pricing provision found.

|-
| Switzerland
| 1
| Article 7(2) of the Federal Act on Cartels and Other Restraints of Competition of October 6, 1995 prohibits "the under-cutting of prices or other conditions directed against a specific competitor."

|-
| Taiwan
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that competition law in Taiwan stipulates that enterprises in dominant market positions should not improperly fix, maintain or change the price of the goods and services, and that ''predatory pricing definitely belongs to improperly fixing price''.<ref>http://www.jurist.org.cn/doc/uclaw200512/uclaw20051206.pdf</ref>

|-
| Tajikistan
| 1
| Article 4 prohibits a dominant firm from setting low prices.

|-
| Tanzania
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Thailand
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that predatory pricing is an unfair practice under Thai Guidelines.<ref>http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/05/APECTrainingProgramDecember2004/Kalampakorn_Thai.pdf</ref>

|-
| Tunisia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Turkey
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Ukraine
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| United Kingdom
| 1
| Chapter II of the Fair Trading Act of 1973 prohibits predatory pricing. The OFT has published the following guidelines to assess whether pricing schemes are predatory:<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. II-63)</ref>

{| class="wikitable"

|-
| Price below average variable cost
| Predation can be assumed

|-
| Price below average variable cost but below average total cost
| Evidence on costs may indicate predation but evidence required of intention to eliminate a competitor before predation could be found

|-
| Price above average total costs
| Evidence on costs does not indicate predation

|}

The Competition Act of 1980 is also at the disposal of the Director General of the Office of Free Trade (OFT) for the prohibition of predatory pricing.

|-
| United States
| 0
| Though predatory pricing is formally prohibited, the law in the United States is riddled with exceptions that effectively eliminate the predatory pricing prohibition. The "recoupment test" is a notable example.<ref>See ''Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.'', 509 U.S. 209 (1993)</ref>

|-
| Uruguay
| 1
| Article 3(2)(c) of the Law of the Defense of the Competition prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>See Law of the Defense of the Competition, http://www.sice.oas.org/compol/natleg/Uruguay/dec1503.asp#DECRETO</ref>

|-
| Uzbekistan
| 1
| Article 5 prohibits a firm from setting a monopolistic low price, which is defined as the price of a good consciously set by the undertaking, with dominant position in the market as a seller, at a level bringing the losses from sale of a given good, result of which is or may be the restriction of competition by means of driving the competitors out of the market.

|-
| Venezuela
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found. Moreover, a secondary source suggests that no such prohibition exists.<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=2tsyQFzaj0UC&pg=RA1-PA349&lpg=RA1-PA349&dq=venezuela+predatory+pricing&source=web&ots=lrCQHugr38&sig=gol1a-LNF_pcCwR3vuIkFTIj1Rw</ref>

|-
| Vietnam
| 1
| Secondary source indicates Vietnam prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.freshfields.com/practice/comptrade/publications/pdf/10388.pdf</ref>

|-
| Zambia
| 1
| Article 7(2)(a) of The Competition and Fair Trading Act (1994) prohibits "predatory behaviour towards competition including the use of cost pricing to eliminate competitors."<ref>The Competition and Fair Trading Act (1994), http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/africa/Zambia/COMPETITION%20anDFAIR%20TRADING%20ACT.PDF</ref>

|-
| Zimbabwe
| 1
| Amendment 14 of 2001 to the The Competition Act of 1996 prohibits "[s]elling at very low prices or at below production costs as a deliberate strategy of driving competitors off the market."

|}

== References ==

<references />

Predatory Pricing Report

2009-02-07T13:53:57Z

Kajrozga:

{| class="wikitable"

|-
! Country
! Predatory Pricing Prohibition
! Comment

|-
| Albania
| 1
| Article 9(2)(d) of Law No. 9121, dated July 28, 2003 on Competition Protection prohibits "the undercutting of prices or other conditions which have as their object or effect the prevention of entry or the expulsion from the market for specific competitor(s) or one of their products . . . ."

|-
| Algeria
| 1
| § 3(16) of the OECD report on Competition Law and Policy in Algeria indicates they prohibit predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/50/26369606.pdf</ref>

|-
| Angola
|0
|

|-
| Argentina
| 0
|

|-
| Armenia
| 0
|

|-
| Australia
| 1
| "Predatory pricing is unlawful under § 46(1) of the Trade Practices Act." <ref> Australian Competition and Consumer Commission web site, http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/322986/fromItemId/3669</ref>

|-
| Austria
| 1
| §31(1)(5) of the Federal Act of 19 October 1988 on Cartels and other Restrictive Trade Practices prohibits the sale of goods below cost price when it cannot be justified on material grounds.

|-
| Azerbaijan
| 0
|

|-
| Bangladesh
| 0
| ''Bangladesh has no competition law in force.''

|-
| Barbados
| 1
| Article 16(3)(d) of the Fair Competition Act (2002) prohibits enterprise actions which "directly or indirectly imposes unfair purchase or selling prices that are excessive, unreasonable, discriminatory or '''predatory''' ..."<ref>http://www.commerce.gov.bb/Legislation/Documents/Fair%20Competition%20Act,%20Cap%20326C.pdf</ref>

|-
| Belarus
| 1
| Article 5 prohibits "fixing or maintaining prices <b>(underpinning the market)</b> for deriving monopolistic high profit or removal of competitors ..."<ref>http://law.by/work/EnglPortal.nsf/6e1a652fbefce34ac2256d910056d559/4dd2237ccbd3b4e6c2256dc1002932c6?OpenDocument</ref><ref>World Bank, Competition Law Database, http://go.worldbank.org/SMDO288DV0</ref>

|-
| Belgium
| 1
| Articles 40-41 of The Commercial Practices Act of July 14, 1991 forbid reselling products at a loss.<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-518)</ref>

|-
| Bolivia
| 0
|

|-
| Bosnia-Herzegovina
| 1
| Act on Competition of 2005 is supplemented by the Regulation on Definition of a Dominant Position of 2006. Article 9(c) of this by-law prohibits "fixing a price of the product or service below the production costs with the view to eliminate the competitors."<ref>http://www.bihkonk.gov.ba/en/laws/low_on_competition_new.pdf</ref>

|-
| Brazil
| 1
| Article 21(18) of Law # 8884 OF JUNE 11, 1994 prohibits a dominant from to unreasonably sell products below cost.

|-
| Bulgaria
| 0
| Bulgaria prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Burkina Faso
| 0
|

|-
| Canada
| 1
| § 50(1)(c) of Competition Act of August 23, 2000 prohibits engaging in "a policy of selling products at prices unreasonably low, having the effect or tendency of substantially lessening competition or eliminating a competitor."

|-
| Cambodia
| 0
|

|-
| Cameroon
| 0
|

|-
| Chile
| 1
| The Antitrust Commission has fined firms for engaging in predatory pricing.<ref>Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, Competition Law and Policy in Chile, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/53/24955980.pdf and Global Competition Review website, http://globalcompetitionreview.com/ara/chile.cfm</ref>

|-
| China
| 1
| Law of the People’s Republic of China for Countering Unfair Competition of September 2, 1993 states that "an operator shall not sell its or his goods at a price that is below the cost for the purpose of excluding its or his competitors."

|-
| Colombia
| 1
| Prohibited by article 67 of Law no. 108/05 of May 3, 2006.<ref>http://go.worldbank.org/7P3DRBYZI0</ref>

|-
| Costa Rica
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Cote d'Ivoire
| 0
| Article 24 of Law No. 91-999 of December 27, 1991 on Competition prohibits loss leader selling, but not predatory pricing. <ref>Report on United Nations Conference on Trade and development of 24 November 1997, available at, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2emd11.pdf</ref>

|-
| Croatia
| 0
| No evidence was found of a predatory pricing provision in the Competition Act of July 15, 2003. The Croatian Law on the Protection of Market Competition of July 14, 1995 did prohibit predatory pricing, however. <ref> USAID Croatia Commercial Law Assessment Report, March 2002, http://www.bizlawreform.com/country_assess/Croatia%20Assessment.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Cyprus
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Czech Republic
| 1
| Article 11(1)(e) of the Consolidated Act on the Protection of Competition, ACT No. 143/2001 Coll. of April 4 2001 last amended by Act No. 484/2004 Coll. of 5 August 2004, prohibits by a Dominant firm "consistent offer and sale of goods for unfairly low prices, which results or may result in distortion of competition." <ref>http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2clp50_en.pdf; http://www.compet.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/Legislativa/legislativa_EN/Act_143_2004.doc</ref>

|-
| Denmark
| 1
| The Danish Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Supervision Act of 1955 forbids predatory pricing.<ref>Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/54/2375661.pdf (p. 33)</ref>

|-
| Dominican Republic
| 0
|

|-
| Ecuador
| 0
|

|-
| Egypt
| 1
| Article 8(h) of the Law on the Protection of Competition and the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices prohibits selling products below their marginal cost or average variable cost.

|-
| El Salvador
| 1
| Article 30(c) - "The systematic reduction of prices, below the cost price, with the purpose of eliminating one or several competitors, or impeding the entry or expansion of the same."<ref>http://www.minec.gob.sv/leyes/LeydeCompetencia_english_.pdf</ref>

|-
| Estonia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| EU Generally<ref>Information for this section has been gleaned from '''The EC law of Competition''' (eds. Jonathan Faull and Ali Nikpay)</ref>
| 1
| Article 82 (formerly Article 86) of the EC Treaty prohibits predatory pricing. The Commission began prosecuting predatory pricing in 1985, in the ''AKZO'' case.<ref>''AKZO'' [1985] OJ L374/1.</ref> This case led to the establishment of a two-pronged test for predatory pricing. A firm was guilty of the offense if it either:
# Sets the price at below average variable cost. This amounts to a per se assumption of abusive behavior.
# Sets the price at below average total cost, but above average variable cost. This is also assumed to be predatory, but requires a specific plan by the firm to eliminate competitors.

|-
| Faroe Island
| 0
|

|-
| Fiji
| 1
| The Commerce Commission "reserves its right to investigate any predatory pricing in breach
of section 37 of the Fair Trading Decree 1992." <ref>Official government sources: http://www.fiji.gov.fj/publish/page_7074.shtml; http://www.commcomm.gov.fj/docs/061001-postFijiDetermination.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Finland
| 1
| Article 7(4) of the Act on Competition Restrictions (480/1992) makes, "a pricing practice which is unreasonable or obviously aimed at restricting competition" an abuse of a dominant position.<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. II-363-64)</ref>

|-
| France
|1
| French Competition Act (Ordinance no. 86-1243 of December 1, 1986 (amended July 9, 1999)
"Article 10-1: Price offers or price practices with respect to consumer sales prices that are abusively low in relation to the costs of production, transformation, and marketing are prohibited, since these offers or practices have as their purpose, or may have as their effect, to eliminate from a market or to prevent access to a market by an enterprise or one of its products."

(Note: This Article has been used only rarely by enforcement agencies.) <ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-190)</ref>

|-
| Germany
|1
| § 20(4) of Act Against Restraints of Competition, as amended August 26 1998, states that dominant firms cannot use their market power to hinder competitors in an "unfair manner," which occurs when a firm "offers goods or services not merely occasionally below its cost price . . . ."<ref>http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/europe/Germany/Act%20Against%20Restrainst%20of%20Competition.pdf</ref>

|-
| Georgia
|0
|

|-
| Greece
| 1
| As of August 3, 2000, Courts have interpreted predatory pricing as an abuse of a dominant position.<ref>Competition Law in the EU, p. 605 (citing Competition Commission Decisions 232/95 P.Lambropoulos&Co. Priv. Partn.; 264/95 Protoporia Publications Litd.</ref>

|-
| Greenland
|0
|

|-
| Guatemala
| 1
| Article 341 of the Criminal Code, Decree No. 17-73, prohibits "the sale of goods of any kind at a price below their cost, in order to prevent free competition in the domestic market."<ref>FTAA report, Inventory of Domestic Laws and Regulations relating to Competition Policy in the Western Hemisphere, March 22, 2002, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp</ref>

|-
| Guyana
|0
|

|-
| Honduras
| 1
|Article 7(6) prohibits the fixing of prices below cost to eliminate competitors. <ref>http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:21326341~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html</ref>

|-
| Hong Kong
| 1
| Article 7(a) of The Competition Policy Advisory Group Statement on Competition Policy, May 1998 lists predatory pricing as an example of an abuse of a dominant position.

|-
| Hungary
| 1
| Article 21(h) of Act LVII of 1996 on the Prohibition of Unfair and Restrictive Market Practices as amended, effective November 1, 2005 makes it prohibited to "set extremely low prices which are not based on greater efficiency in comparison with that of competitors and which are likely to drive out competitors from the relevant market or to hinder their market entry[.]" The prohibition on predatory pricing, however, can be traced back to the original draft of the Act, as entered into force January 1 1997.<ref>ANNUAL REPORT ON COMPETITION LAW AND POLICY DEVELOPMENTS IN HUNGARY at p. 5, published by the Hungarian Comeptition Authority, 1998. Viewable at www.gvh.hu/domain2/files/modules/module25/pdf/GVH_OGy_beszamolo_1997_a.pdf</ref>

|-
| Iceland
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing was found in the statute. Moreover, predatory pricing has been reported as an ongoing practice by certain firms.<ref>http://www.icelandexpress.com/about_us/press/2004/ice_wars_icelandairs_dirty_trick_campaign_takes_a_different_turn/</ref>

|-
| India
| 1
| § 4(2)(ii) of the The Competition Act, 2002, No. 12 of 2003 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Indonesia
| 1
| Article 21 of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5 of 1999 has been interpreted to forbid dominant firms from imposing predatory pricing.<ref>East Asia Competition Policy Forum reports, http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/01/indonesia_progress_sutrisno.030503.pdf, http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/01/pprs.pdf; Also see United Nation Conference on Trade and Development report of January 29 2002, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2clp25.en.pdf </ref> Article 7 explicitly prohibits predatory pricing agreements between firms.

|-
| Ireland
| 0
| The enforcement agency has investigated an alleged abuse of predatory pricing, but found it did not constitute an abuse and was instead, "intense competition."<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/50/37028481.pdf, 12</ref>

|-
| Iran
| 0
|

|-
| Israel
| 1
| The Restrictive Trade Practices Law 5748 of 1988 prohibits "excessive or predatory pricing of the product under
a monopoly."<ref>http://www.lexmundi.com/images/lexmundi/PDF/guide_israel.pdf</ref>

|-
| Italy
| 0
| Italy has no prohibition on predatory pricing. However, "it is foreseeable that the same principles set forth in EC law to prohibit predatory price cutting by a dominant undertaking may be applied."<ref>Competition Law in the EU, Vol. 1, 384.</ref>

|-
| Jamaica
| 0
|

|-
| Japan
| 0
| Japan prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Jersey, Channel Islands
| 0
| Jersey prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Jordan
| 0
| Prohibited by Articles 6.A and 6.C of the Competition Law of 2004.<ref>World Bank Competition Law Database: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:21001779~menuPK:2137510~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html</ref>

|-
| Kazakhstan
| 1
| Article 10(1)of the 2006 Law of the Republic of Kazahkstan on Competition and Restriction of Monopolistic Activities<ref>Statute provided from the World Bank at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCOMPLEGALDB/Resources/CompetitivenesandMonopolyRestrictionLaw20060707_eng.pdf</ref> prohibits excessively low price setting.

|-
| Kenya
| 1
| Article 10(3)(a) of The Restrictive Trade Practices, Monopolies and Price Control Act of 1990 prohibits selling below average variable cost.

|-
| Kyrgystan
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Lao PDR
| 0
|

|-
| Latvia
| 0
| Latvia has no explicit prohibition on predatory pricing. However, "[p]redatory pricing by definition as a practice aimed at hindrance, restriction or distortion of competition would qualify as an abuse of dominant position.<ref>Dace Silava-Tomsone, Getting the Deal Through – Dominance 2006, http://www.lt-v.lv/pdf/Latvia_dace.pdf</ref>

|-
| Lithuania
| 1
| Lithuania's competition authority includes predatory pricing in its definition of an abuse of a dominant position. This definition is found in a May 17 2000 intra-agency bylaw,<ref>http://www.konkuren.lt/english/antitrust/legislation_resoliution_52.htm</ref> a supplement to their more general competition legislation.<ref>http://www.konkuren.lt/english/antitrust/legislation.htm</ref>

|-
| Luxembourg
| 1
| Below cost selling of goods and services is prohibited under the Act on Commercial Practices, Unfair Competition and Comparative Advertising (July 2002).<ref>http://www.entemp.ie/publications/commerce/2005/groceriesorder/chapter9.pdf</ref>

|-
| Malawi
| 1
| Article 32(2)(a) of the Malawi Competition and Fair Trading Bill of 1998 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Mali
| 1
| Article 17 of Ordonnance N°92-021/P-CTSP Instituant la Liberte des Prix et de la Concurrence, dated April 13, 1992 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Malta
| 1
| Article 9(2)(b) of Chapter 379 Competition Act of February 1 1995 forbids "charg[ing] prices which are below the average variable cost price of a product in order to drive rival competitors out of the market[.]"

|-
| Mauritius
| 1
| Article 11(2)(a) of The Competition Bill N° VI of 2003 prohibits below-cost selling by a dominant firm.

|-
| Macedonia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Mexico
| 1
| Article 7 of the Regulations of the Federal Law on Economic Competition of March 4, 1998 prohibits price setting below market price.

|-
| Moldova
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Mongolia
| 1
| Article 4(3) of the Law of Mongolia on Prohibiting Unfair Competition prohibits a firm from selling own goods at a price lower than the cost.

|-
| Morocco
| 1
| Article 7 of Dahir no. 1-00-225 of 2 rabil I 1421 promulgating law no. 06-99, concerning freedom of prices and competition, prohibits pricing offers or abusive practices in pricing sales to consumers that are low compared to production costs, distribution costs, and promotion costs, when these offers or practices are meant to or may have the effect of eliminating a market.

|-
| Namibia
| 0
|

|-
| Netherlands
| 0
| Dutch law does not forbid resale at a loss, either. <ref>Competition Law in the EU, Vol. 1, 445.</ref>

|-
| New Zealand
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that New Zealand's general test for predatory pricing is similar to the US, in that they ask, "is there below-cost price cutting with a view to recouping losses without loss of market share by raising prices without fear of reprisals afterwards?"<ref>http://www.luc.edu/law/academics/special/center/antitrust/pdfs/berry_nz_summary.pdf</ref>

|-
| Nicaragua
| 1
| Article 19(h) prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.dgpsa.gob.ni/biblioteca/biblioteca_archivos/449/Ley%20601.%20Ley%20%20de%20promocion%20de%20la%20competencia..pdf</ref>

|-
| Nigeria
| 0
|

|-
| Norway
| 1
| Though unclear which specific provision it uses, the Norwegin Competition Authority has recently held numerous proceedings for predatory pricing violations.<ref>http://sec.edgar-online.com/2005/04/15/0001156973-05-000475/Section4.asp; http://competition.practicallaw.com/7-201-3648; http://ld.practicallaw.com/4-208-8975</ref>.

|-
| Pakistan
| 0
|

|-
| Panama
| 1
| "Any predatory action taken unilaterally . . . when said action cannot reasonably be expected to generate or increase earnings, but rather to encourage the competitor or potential competitor to stop competing . . . leaving the agent with substantial power or in a monopolistic position . . ."<ref>FTAA - Negotiating Group on Competition Policy Inventory of Domestic Laws and Regulations relating to Competition Policy in the Western Hemisphere, March 22 2002, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp</ref>

|-
| Papua and New Guinea
| 0
|

|-
| Paraguay
| 0
|

|-
| Philippines
| 0
|

|-
| Peru
| 1
| The Competition Policy Commission initiated proceedings for predatory pricing in ''Tabacalera Nacional S.A. against British American Tabacco (South America) Limited – Perú''.<ref>OECD Global Forum on Competition CONTRIBUTION FROM PERU, October 4 2001, http://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=Predatory_Pricing_Report&action=edit</ref>

|-
| Poland
| 1
| Article 15.1(1) of the The Act on Combating Unfair Competition of April 16 1993 prohibits "the sale of goods or services below their purchase cost in order to eliminate other entrepreneurs."<ref>http://www.uokik.gov.pl/download/Z2Z4L3Vva2lrL2VuL2RlZmF1bHRfb3Bpc3kudjAvNTIvMS8xLzIwMDdfMDFfMTZfdXpua19fZW5nbGlzaF92ZXJzaW9uLnBkZg</ref> Article 8(2)(1) of The Act on Protection of Competition and Consumers of December 15 2000 prohibits "direct or indirect imposition of unfair prices, including predatory prices or prices glaringly low."<ref>http://www.konsument.gov.pl/files/ccp_act.pdf</ref>

|-
| Portugal
| 1
| Decree-Law 370/93 of October 29, 1993 (as amended by Decree-Law 140/98 on May 16 1998) forbids selling goods at a price below the actual price of purchase (plus taxes and transportation costs).<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-326)</ref>

|-
| Romania
| 1
| Article 6(f) of The Parliament of Romania Competition Law of 1996 explicitly prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Russia
| 1
| Article 7 of Law no. 135 on the Protection of Competition prohibits a dominant firm from setting a price that is lower than the sum of expenses necessary for production and sale of the commodity.

|-
| Saudi Arabia
| 1
| Article 5(1) of the Competition Law of 2004 prohibits "selling a commodity or service at a price below cost, with the intention of forcing competitors out of the market."

|-
| Senegal
| 0
|

|-
| Serbia-Montenegro
| 0
|

|-
| Singapore
| 1
| Singapore authorities have clarified that Article 47(2)(a) of No. 46 Competition Act of 2004 includes prohibition ofpredatory pricing.<ref>http://app.mti.gov.sg/default.asp?id=148&articleID=107; http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN025141.pdf</ref>

|-
| Slovak Republic
| 1
| The Slovak Republic forbids abusive acts by a dominant firm seeking to exclude competition.<ref>136/2001 Coll. ACT of 27 February 2001 on Protection of Competition and on Amendments and Supplements to Act of the Slovak National Council No. 347/1990 Coll. (Article 8(2)(e))</ref> The Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic (their enforcement agency) has used this provision to prosecute temporary predatory pricing of fuels as early as September 26 2001,<ref>Decision No. 2001/DZ/P/2/283 issued by Chairman of the Office on September 26, 2001 (http://www.antimon.gov.sk/eng/article.aspx?c=395&a=2139</ref> but the decision was never given effect, as the defendant discontinued its pricing scheme.

|-
| Slovenia
| 0
| No predatory pricing provision found. Office for Protection of Competition received one complaint of predatory pricing against Produkcija Plus d.o.o. - RTV Slovenia d.o.o. on 2/20/01. However, the complaint was dismissed (Office did not rule on the merits).<ref>http://www.uvk.gov.si/fileadmin/uvk.gov.si/pageuploads/Enforcement_Record_2001.pdf</ref>

|-
| South Africa
| 1
| Section 8(d)(iv) of the South African Competition Act 89 of 1998 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| South Korea
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that predatory pricing is prohibited.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=9aSrAg57v-oC&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq=korea+predatory+pricing&source=web&ots=Ha4I_DL5gr&sig=uPTcGF0DqgytzhKgN4wMY9_J0KcDeregulation Deregulation and Interdependence in the Asia-Pacific Region by Anne O. Krueger, Takatoshi Itō]</ref>

|-
| Spain
| 1
| There are two cases where the courts have issued fines for predatory pricing:

1. General Electric Espana[20], December 30 1991, - GE's local affiliate was fined Pta 15 million (~90,000 euros)<ref>TDC Dec. 295/91, or December 30, 1991</ref>

2. Arbora/Ausonia, January 7 1992<ref>TDC Dec. 291/90, January 7, 1992</ref>

Predatory pricing, presumably, is covered by common law because there is no mention of it in the Spanish competition laws.

Note: More recently, Telefónica, a Spanish firm, was fined by £102.6m (€152m) by the EU competition agency.<ref>http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/government-law/legislation/news/index.cfm?newsid=3865</ref>

|-
| Sri Lanka
| 1
| Anti-competitive practices prohibited by the Fair Trading Commission Act No. 1 of 1987 includes predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/articles/sri_lankan/HTML/CV39.html</ref>In Ceylon Oxygen Co. Ltd. V. Fair Trading Commission And Another, the Commission considered a predatory pricing complaint.<ref>http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/case_law/slr/HTML/1997SLR2V372.htm</ref>

|-
| Sweden
| 0
| No predatory pricing provision found.

|-
| Switzerland
| 1
| Article 7(2) of the Federal Act on Cartels and Other Restraints of Competition of October 6, 1995 prohibits "the under-cutting of prices or other conditions directed against a specific competitor."

|-
| Taiwan
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that competition law in Taiwan stipulates that enterprises in dominant market positions should not improperly fix, maintain or change the price of the goods and services, and that ''predatory pricing definitely belongs to improperly fixing price''.<ref>http://www.jurist.org.cn/doc/uclaw200512/uclaw20051206.pdf</ref>

|-
| Tajikistan
| 1
| Article 4 prohibits a dominant firm from setting low prices.

|-
| Tanzania
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Thailand
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that predatory pricing is an unfair practice under Thai Guidelines.<ref>http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/05/APECTrainingProgramDecember2004/Kalampakorn_Thai.pdf</ref>

|-
| Tunisia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Turkey
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Ukraine
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| United Kingdom
| 1
| Chapter II of the Fair Trading Act of 1973 prohibits predatory pricing. The OFT has published the following guidelines to assess whether pricing schemes are predatory:<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. II-63)</ref>

{| class="wikitable"

|-
| Price below average variable cost
| Predation can be assumed

|-
| Price below average variable cost but below average total cost
| Evidence on costs may indicate predation but evidence required of intention to eliminate a competitor before predation could be found

|-
| Price above average total costs
| Evidence on costs does not indicate predation

|}

The Competition Act of 1980 is also at the disposal of the Director General of the Office of Free Trade (OFT) for the prohibition of predatory pricing.

|-
| United States
| 0
| Though predatory pricing is formally prohibited, the law in the United States is riddled with exceptions that effectively eliminate the predatory pricing prohibition. The "recoupment test" is a notable example.<ref>See ''Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.'', 509 U.S. 209 (1993)</ref>

|-
| Uruguay
| 1
| Article 3(2)(c) of the Law of the Defense of the Competition prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>See Law of the Defense of the Competition, http://www.sice.oas.org/compol/natleg/Uruguay/dec1503.asp#DECRETO</ref>

|-
| Uzbekistan
| 1
| Article 5 prohibits a firm from setting a monopolistic low price, which is defined as the price of a good consciously set by the undertaking, with dominant position in the market as a seller, at a level bringing the losses from sale of a given good, result of which is or may be the restriction of competition by means of driving the competitors out of the market.

|-
| Venezuela
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found. Moreover, a secondary source suggests that no such prohibition exists.<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=2tsyQFzaj0UC&pg=RA1-PA349&lpg=RA1-PA349&dq=venezuela+predatory+pricing&source=web&ots=lrCQHugr38&sig=gol1a-LNF_pcCwR3vuIkFTIj1Rw</ref>

|-
| Vietnam
| 1
| Secondary source indicates Vietnam prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.freshfields.com/practice/comptrade/publications/pdf/10388.pdf</ref>

|-
| Zambia
| 1
| Article 7(2)(a) of The Competition and Fair Trading Act (1994) prohibits "predatory behaviour towards competition including the use of cost pricing to eliminate competitors."<ref>The Competition and Fair Trading Act (1994), http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/africa/Zambia/COMPETITION%20anDFAIR%20TRADING%20ACT.PDF</ref>

|-
| Zimbabwe
| 1
| Amendment 14 of 2001 to the The Competition Act of 1996 prohibits "[s]elling at very low prices or at below production costs as a deliberate strategy of driving competitors off the market."

|}

== References ==

<references />

Predatory Pricing Report

2009-02-07T13:53:36Z

Kajrozga:

{| class="wikitable"

|-
! Country
! Predatory Pricing Prohibition
! Comment

|-
| Albania
| 1
| Article 9(2)(d) of Law No. 9121, dated July 28, 2003 on Competition Protection prohibits "the undercutting of prices or other conditions which have as their object or effect the prevention of entry or the expulsion from the market for specific competitor(s) or one of their products . . . ."

|-
| Algeria
| 1
| § 3(16) of the OECD report on Competition Law and Policy in Algeria indicates they prohibit predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/50/26369606.pdf</ref>

|-
| Angola
|0
|

|-
| Argentina
| 0
|

|-
| Armenia
| 0
|

|-
| Australia
| 1
| "Predatory pricing is unlawful under § 46(1) of the Trade Practices Act." <ref> Australian Competition and Consumer Commission web site, http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/322986/fromItemId/3669</ref>

|-
| Austria
| 1
| §31(1)(5) of the Federal Act of 19 October 1988 on Cartels and other Restrictive Trade Practices prohibits the sale of goods below cost price when it cannot be justified on material grounds.

|-
| Azerbaijan
| 0
|

|-
| Bangladesh
| 0
| ''Bangladesh has no competition law in force.''

|-
| Barbados
| 1
| Article 16(3)(d) of the Fair Competition Act (2002) prohibits enterprise actions which "directly or indirectly imposes unfair purchase or selling prices that are excessive, unreasonable, discriminatory or '''predatory''' ..."<ref>http://www.commerce.gov.bb/Legislation/Documents/Fair%20Competition%20Act,%20Cap%20326C.pdf</ref>

|-
| Belarus
| 1
| Article 5 prohibits "fixing or maintaining prices <b>(underpinning the market)</b> for deriving monopolistic high profit or removal of competitors ..."<ref>http://law.by/work/EnglPortal.nsf/6e1a652fbefce34ac2256d910056d559/4dd2237ccbd3b4e6c2256dc1002932c6?OpenDocument</ref><ref>World Bank, Competition Law Database, http://go.worldbank.org/SMDO288DV0</ref>

|-
| Belgium
| 1
| Articles 40-41 of The Commercial Practices Act of July 14, 1991 forbid reselling products at a loss.<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-518)</ref>

|-
| Bolivia
| 0
|

|-
| Bosnia-Herzegovina
| 1
| Act on Competition of 2005 is supplemented by the Regulation on Definition of a Dominant Posision of 2006. Article 9(c) of this by-law prohibits "fixing a price of the product or service below the production costs with the view to eliminate the competitors."<ref>http://www.bihkonk.gov.ba/en/laws/low_on_competition_new.pdf</ref>

|-
| Brazil
| 1
| Article 21(18) of Law # 8884 OF JUNE 11, 1994 prohibits a dominant from to unreasonably sell products below cost.

|-
| Bulgaria
| 0
| Bulgaria prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Burkina Faso
| 0
|

|-
| Canada
| 1
| § 50(1)(c) of Competition Act of August 23, 2000 prohibits engaging in "a policy of selling products at prices unreasonably low, having the effect or tendency of substantially lessening competition or eliminating a competitor."

|-
| Cambodia
| 0
|

|-
| Cameroon
| 0
|

|-
| Chile
| 1
| The Antitrust Commission has fined firms for engaging in predatory pricing.<ref>Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, Competition Law and Policy in Chile, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/53/24955980.pdf and Global Competition Review website, http://globalcompetitionreview.com/ara/chile.cfm</ref>

|-
| China
| 1
| Law of the People’s Republic of China for Countering Unfair Competition of September 2, 1993 states that "an operator shall not sell its or his goods at a price that is below the cost for the purpose of excluding its or his competitors."

|-
| Colombia
| 1
| Prohibited by article 67 of Law no. 108/05 of May 3, 2006.<ref>http://go.worldbank.org/7P3DRBYZI0</ref>

|-
| Costa Rica
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Cote d'Ivoire
| 0
| Article 24 of Law No. 91-999 of December 27, 1991 on Competition prohibits loss leader selling, but not predatory pricing. <ref>Report on United Nations Conference on Trade and development of 24 November 1997, available at, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2emd11.pdf</ref>

|-
| Croatia
| 0
| No evidence was found of a predatory pricing provision in the Competition Act of July 15, 2003. The Croatian Law on the Protection of Market Competition of July 14, 1995 did prohibit predatory pricing, however. <ref> USAID Croatia Commercial Law Assessment Report, March 2002, http://www.bizlawreform.com/country_assess/Croatia%20Assessment.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Cyprus
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Czech Republic
| 1
| Article 11(1)(e) of the Consolidated Act on the Protection of Competition, ACT No. 143/2001 Coll. of April 4 2001 last amended by Act No. 484/2004 Coll. of 5 August 2004, prohibits by a Dominant firm "consistent offer and sale of goods for unfairly low prices, which results or may result in distortion of competition." <ref>http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2clp50_en.pdf; http://www.compet.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/Legislativa/legislativa_EN/Act_143_2004.doc</ref>

|-
| Denmark
| 1
| The Danish Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Supervision Act of 1955 forbids predatory pricing.<ref>Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/54/2375661.pdf (p. 33)</ref>

|-
| Dominican Republic
| 0
|

|-
| Ecuador
| 0
|

|-
| Egypt
| 1
| Article 8(h) of the Law on the Protection of Competition and the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices prohibits selling products below their marginal cost or average variable cost.

|-
| El Salvador
| 1
| Article 30(c) - "The systematic reduction of prices, below the cost price, with the purpose of eliminating one or several competitors, or impeding the entry or expansion of the same."<ref>http://www.minec.gob.sv/leyes/LeydeCompetencia_english_.pdf</ref>

|-
| Estonia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| EU Generally<ref>Information for this section has been gleaned from '''The EC law of Competition''' (eds. Jonathan Faull and Ali Nikpay)</ref>
| 1
| Article 82 (formerly Article 86) of the EC Treaty prohibits predatory pricing. The Commission began prosecuting predatory pricing in 1985, in the ''AKZO'' case.<ref>''AKZO'' [1985] OJ L374/1.</ref> This case led to the establishment of a two-pronged test for predatory pricing. A firm was guilty of the offense if it either:
# Sets the price at below average variable cost. This amounts to a per se assumption of abusive behavior.
# Sets the price at below average total cost, but above average variable cost. This is also assumed to be predatory, but requires a specific plan by the firm to eliminate competitors.

|-
| Faroe Island
| 0
|

|-
| Fiji
| 1
| The Commerce Commission "reserves its right to investigate any predatory pricing in breach
of section 37 of the Fair Trading Decree 1992." <ref>Official government sources: http://www.fiji.gov.fj/publish/page_7074.shtml; http://www.commcomm.gov.fj/docs/061001-postFijiDetermination.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Finland
| 1
| Article 7(4) of the Act on Competition Restrictions (480/1992) makes, "a pricing practice which is unreasonable or obviously aimed at restricting competition" an abuse of a dominant position.<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. II-363-64)</ref>

|-
| France
|1
| French Competition Act (Ordinance no. 86-1243 of December 1, 1986 (amended July 9, 1999)
"Article 10-1: Price offers or price practices with respect to consumer sales prices that are abusively low in relation to the costs of production, transformation, and marketing are prohibited, since these offers or practices have as their purpose, or may have as their effect, to eliminate from a market or to prevent access to a market by an enterprise or one of its products."

(Note: This Article has been used only rarely by enforcement agencies.) <ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-190)</ref>

|-
| Germany
|1
| § 20(4) of Act Against Restraints of Competition, as amended August 26 1998, states that dominant firms cannot use their market power to hinder competitors in an "unfair manner," which occurs when a firm "offers goods or services not merely occasionally below its cost price . . . ."<ref>http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/europe/Germany/Act%20Against%20Restrainst%20of%20Competition.pdf</ref>

|-
| Georgia
|0
|

|-
| Greece
| 1
| As of August 3, 2000, Courts have interpreted predatory pricing as an abuse of a dominant position.<ref>Competition Law in the EU, p. 605 (citing Competition Commission Decisions 232/95 P.Lambropoulos&Co. Priv. Partn.; 264/95 Protoporia Publications Litd.</ref>

|-
| Greenland
|0
|

|-
| Guatemala
| 1
| Article 341 of the Criminal Code, Decree No. 17-73, prohibits "the sale of goods of any kind at a price below their cost, in order to prevent free competition in the domestic market."<ref>FTAA report, Inventory of Domestic Laws and Regulations relating to Competition Policy in the Western Hemisphere, March 22, 2002, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp</ref>

|-
| Guyana
|0
|

|-
| Honduras
| 1
|Article 7(6) prohibits the fixing of prices below cost to eliminate competitors. <ref>http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:21326341~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html</ref>

|-
| Hong Kong
| 1
| Article 7(a) of The Competition Policy Advisory Group Statement on Competition Policy, May 1998 lists predatory pricing as an example of an abuse of a dominant position.

|-
| Hungary
| 1
| Article 21(h) of Act LVII of 1996 on the Prohibition of Unfair and Restrictive Market Practices as amended, effective November 1, 2005 makes it prohibited to "set extremely low prices which are not based on greater efficiency in comparison with that of competitors and which are likely to drive out competitors from the relevant market or to hinder their market entry[.]" The prohibition on predatory pricing, however, can be traced back to the original draft of the Act, as entered into force January 1 1997.<ref>ANNUAL REPORT ON COMPETITION LAW AND POLICY DEVELOPMENTS IN HUNGARY at p. 5, published by the Hungarian Comeptition Authority, 1998. Viewable at www.gvh.hu/domain2/files/modules/module25/pdf/GVH_OGy_beszamolo_1997_a.pdf</ref>

|-
| Iceland
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing was found in the statute. Moreover, predatory pricing has been reported as an ongoing practice by certain firms.<ref>http://www.icelandexpress.com/about_us/press/2004/ice_wars_icelandairs_dirty_trick_campaign_takes_a_different_turn/</ref>

|-
| India
| 1
| § 4(2)(ii) of the The Competition Act, 2002, No. 12 of 2003 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Indonesia
| 1
| Article 21 of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5 of 1999 has been interpreted to forbid dominant firms from imposing predatory pricing.<ref>East Asia Competition Policy Forum reports, http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/01/indonesia_progress_sutrisno.030503.pdf, http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/01/pprs.pdf; Also see United Nation Conference on Trade and Development report of January 29 2002, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2clp25.en.pdf </ref> Article 7 explicitly prohibits predatory pricing agreements between firms.

|-
| Ireland
| 0
| The enforcement agency has investigated an alleged abuse of predatory pricing, but found it did not constitute an abuse and was instead, "intense competition."<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/50/37028481.pdf, 12</ref>

|-
| Iran
| 0
|

|-
| Israel
| 1
| The Restrictive Trade Practices Law 5748 of 1988 prohibits "excessive or predatory pricing of the product under
a monopoly."<ref>http://www.lexmundi.com/images/lexmundi/PDF/guide_israel.pdf</ref>

|-
| Italy
| 0
| Italy has no prohibition on predatory pricing. However, "it is foreseeable that the same principles set forth in EC law to prohibit predatory price cutting by a dominant undertaking may be applied."<ref>Competition Law in the EU, Vol. 1, 384.</ref>

|-
| Jamaica
| 0
|

|-
| Japan
| 0
| Japan prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Jersey, Channel Islands
| 0
| Jersey prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Jordan
| 0
| Prohibited by Articles 6.A and 6.C of the Competition Law of 2004.<ref>World Bank Competition Law Database: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:21001779~menuPK:2137510~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html</ref>

|-
| Kazakhstan
| 1
| Article 10(1)of the 2006 Law of the Republic of Kazahkstan on Competition and Restriction of Monopolistic Activities<ref>Statute provided from the World Bank at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCOMPLEGALDB/Resources/CompetitivenesandMonopolyRestrictionLaw20060707_eng.pdf</ref> prohibits excessively low price setting.

|-
| Kenya
| 1
| Article 10(3)(a) of The Restrictive Trade Practices, Monopolies and Price Control Act of 1990 prohibits selling below average variable cost.

|-
| Kyrgystan
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Lao PDR
| 0
|

|-
| Latvia
| 0
| Latvia has no explicit prohibition on predatory pricing. However, "[p]redatory pricing by definition as a practice aimed at hindrance, restriction or distortion of competition would qualify as an abuse of dominant position.<ref>Dace Silava-Tomsone, Getting the Deal Through – Dominance 2006, http://www.lt-v.lv/pdf/Latvia_dace.pdf</ref>

|-
| Lithuania
| 1
| Lithuania's competition authority includes predatory pricing in its definition of an abuse of a dominant position. This definition is found in a May 17 2000 intra-agency bylaw,<ref>http://www.konkuren.lt/english/antitrust/legislation_resoliution_52.htm</ref> a supplement to their more general competition legislation.<ref>http://www.konkuren.lt/english/antitrust/legislation.htm</ref>

|-
| Luxembourg
| 1
| Below cost selling of goods and services is prohibited under the Act on Commercial Practices, Unfair Competition and Comparative Advertising (July 2002).<ref>http://www.entemp.ie/publications/commerce/2005/groceriesorder/chapter9.pdf</ref>

|-
| Malawi
| 1
| Article 32(2)(a) of the Malawi Competition and Fair Trading Bill of 1998 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Mali
| 1
| Article 17 of Ordonnance N°92-021/P-CTSP Instituant la Liberte des Prix et de la Concurrence, dated April 13, 1992 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Malta
| 1
| Article 9(2)(b) of Chapter 379 Competition Act of February 1 1995 forbids "charg[ing] prices which are below the average variable cost price of a product in order to drive rival competitors out of the market[.]"

|-
| Mauritius
| 1
| Article 11(2)(a) of The Competition Bill N° VI of 2003 prohibits below-cost selling by a dominant firm.

|-
| Macedonia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Mexico
| 1
| Article 7 of the Regulations of the Federal Law on Economic Competition of March 4, 1998 prohibits price setting below market price.

|-
| Moldova
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Mongolia
| 1
| Article 4(3) of the Law of Mongolia on Prohibiting Unfair Competition prohibits a firm from selling own goods at a price lower than the cost.

|-
| Morocco
| 1
| Article 7 of Dahir no. 1-00-225 of 2 rabil I 1421 promulgating law no. 06-99, concerning freedom of prices and competition, prohibits pricing offers or abusive practices in pricing sales to consumers that are low compared to production costs, distribution costs, and promotion costs, when these offers or practices are meant to or may have the effect of eliminating a market.

|-
| Namibia
| 0
|

|-
| Netherlands
| 0
| Dutch law does not forbid resale at a loss, either. <ref>Competition Law in the EU, Vol. 1, 445.</ref>

|-
| New Zealand
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that New Zealand's general test for predatory pricing is similar to the US, in that they ask, "is there below-cost price cutting with a view to recouping losses without loss of market share by raising prices without fear of reprisals afterwards?"<ref>http://www.luc.edu/law/academics/special/center/antitrust/pdfs/berry_nz_summary.pdf</ref>

|-
| Nicaragua
| 1
| Article 19(h) prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.dgpsa.gob.ni/biblioteca/biblioteca_archivos/449/Ley%20601.%20Ley%20%20de%20promocion%20de%20la%20competencia..pdf</ref>

|-
| Nigeria
| 0
|

|-
| Norway
| 1
| Though unclear which specific provision it uses, the Norwegin Competition Authority has recently held numerous proceedings for predatory pricing violations.<ref>http://sec.edgar-online.com/2005/04/15/0001156973-05-000475/Section4.asp; http://competition.practicallaw.com/7-201-3648; http://ld.practicallaw.com/4-208-8975</ref>.

|-
| Pakistan
| 0
|

|-
| Panama
| 1
| "Any predatory action taken unilaterally . . . when said action cannot reasonably be expected to generate or increase earnings, but rather to encourage the competitor or potential competitor to stop competing . . . leaving the agent with substantial power or in a monopolistic position . . ."<ref>FTAA - Negotiating Group on Competition Policy Inventory of Domestic Laws and Regulations relating to Competition Policy in the Western Hemisphere, March 22 2002, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp</ref>

|-
| Papua and New Guinea
| 0
|

|-
| Paraguay
| 0
|

|-
| Philippines
| 0
|

|-
| Peru
| 1
| The Competition Policy Commission initiated proceedings for predatory pricing in ''Tabacalera Nacional S.A. against British American Tabacco (South America) Limited – Perú''.<ref>OECD Global Forum on Competition CONTRIBUTION FROM PERU, October 4 2001, http://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=Predatory_Pricing_Report&action=edit</ref>

|-
| Poland
| 1
| Article 15.1(1) of the The Act on Combating Unfair Competition of April 16 1993 prohibits "the sale of goods or services below their purchase cost in order to eliminate other entrepreneurs."<ref>http://www.uokik.gov.pl/download/Z2Z4L3Vva2lrL2VuL2RlZmF1bHRfb3Bpc3kudjAvNTIvMS8xLzIwMDdfMDFfMTZfdXpua19fZW5nbGlzaF92ZXJzaW9uLnBkZg</ref> Article 8(2)(1) of The Act on Protection of Competition and Consumers of December 15 2000 prohibits "direct or indirect imposition of unfair prices, including predatory prices or prices glaringly low."<ref>http://www.konsument.gov.pl/files/ccp_act.pdf</ref>

|-
| Portugal
| 1
| Decree-Law 370/93 of October 29, 1993 (as amended by Decree-Law 140/98 on May 16 1998) forbids selling goods at a price below the actual price of purchase (plus taxes and transportation costs).<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-326)</ref>

|-
| Romania
| 1
| Article 6(f) of The Parliament of Romania Competition Law of 1996 explicitly prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Russia
| 1
| Article 7 of Law no. 135 on the Protection of Competition prohibits a dominant firm from setting a price that is lower than the sum of expenses necessary for production and sale of the commodity.

|-
| Saudi Arabia
| 1
| Article 5(1) of the Competition Law of 2004 prohibits "selling a commodity or service at a price below cost, with the intention of forcing competitors out of the market."

|-
| Senegal
| 0
|

|-
| Serbia-Montenegro
| 0
|

|-
| Singapore
| 1
| Singapore authorities have clarified that Article 47(2)(a) of No. 46 Competition Act of 2004 includes prohibition ofpredatory pricing.<ref>http://app.mti.gov.sg/default.asp?id=148&articleID=107; http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN025141.pdf</ref>

|-
| Slovak Republic
| 1
| The Slovak Republic forbids abusive acts by a dominant firm seeking to exclude competition.<ref>136/2001 Coll. ACT of 27 February 2001 on Protection of Competition and on Amendments and Supplements to Act of the Slovak National Council No. 347/1990 Coll. (Article 8(2)(e))</ref> The Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic (their enforcement agency) has used this provision to prosecute temporary predatory pricing of fuels as early as September 26 2001,<ref>Decision No. 2001/DZ/P/2/283 issued by Chairman of the Office on September 26, 2001 (http://www.antimon.gov.sk/eng/article.aspx?c=395&a=2139</ref> but the decision was never given effect, as the defendant discontinued its pricing scheme.

|-
| Slovenia
| 0
| No predatory pricing provision found. Office for Protection of Competition received one complaint of predatory pricing against Produkcija Plus d.o.o. - RTV Slovenia d.o.o. on 2/20/01. However, the complaint was dismissed (Office did not rule on the merits).<ref>http://www.uvk.gov.si/fileadmin/uvk.gov.si/pageuploads/Enforcement_Record_2001.pdf</ref>

|-
| South Africa
| 1
| Section 8(d)(iv) of the South African Competition Act 89 of 1998 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| South Korea
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that predatory pricing is prohibited.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=9aSrAg57v-oC&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq=korea+predatory+pricing&source=web&ots=Ha4I_DL5gr&sig=uPTcGF0DqgytzhKgN4wMY9_J0KcDeregulation Deregulation and Interdependence in the Asia-Pacific Region by Anne O. Krueger, Takatoshi Itō]</ref>

|-
| Spain
| 1
| There are two cases where the courts have issued fines for predatory pricing:

1. General Electric Espana[20], December 30 1991, - GE's local affiliate was fined Pta 15 million (~90,000 euros)<ref>TDC Dec. 295/91, or December 30, 1991</ref>

2. Arbora/Ausonia, January 7 1992<ref>TDC Dec. 291/90, January 7, 1992</ref>

Predatory pricing, presumably, is covered by common law because there is no mention of it in the Spanish competition laws.

Note: More recently, Telefónica, a Spanish firm, was fined by £102.6m (€152m) by the EU competition agency.<ref>http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/government-law/legislation/news/index.cfm?newsid=3865</ref>

|-
| Sri Lanka
| 1
| Anti-competitive practices prohibited by the Fair Trading Commission Act No. 1 of 1987 includes predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/articles/sri_lankan/HTML/CV39.html</ref>In Ceylon Oxygen Co. Ltd. V. Fair Trading Commission And Another, the Commission considered a predatory pricing complaint.<ref>http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/case_law/slr/HTML/1997SLR2V372.htm</ref>

|-
| Sweden
| 0
| No predatory pricing provision found.

|-
| Switzerland
| 1
| Article 7(2) of the Federal Act on Cartels and Other Restraints of Competition of October 6, 1995 prohibits "the under-cutting of prices or other conditions directed against a specific competitor."

|-
| Taiwan
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that competition law in Taiwan stipulates that enterprises in dominant market positions should not improperly fix, maintain or change the price of the goods and services, and that ''predatory pricing definitely belongs to improperly fixing price''.<ref>http://www.jurist.org.cn/doc/uclaw200512/uclaw20051206.pdf</ref>

|-
| Tajikistan
| 1
| Article 4 prohibits a dominant firm from setting low prices.

|-
| Tanzania
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Thailand
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that predatory pricing is an unfair practice under Thai Guidelines.<ref>http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/05/APECTrainingProgramDecember2004/Kalampakorn_Thai.pdf</ref>

|-
| Tunisia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Turkey
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Ukraine
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| United Kingdom
| 1
| Chapter II of the Fair Trading Act of 1973 prohibits predatory pricing. The OFT has published the following guidelines to assess whether pricing schemes are predatory:<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. II-63)</ref>

{| class="wikitable"

|-
| Price below average variable cost
| Predation can be assumed

|-
| Price below average variable cost but below average total cost
| Evidence on costs may indicate predation but evidence required of intention to eliminate a competitor before predation could be found

|-
| Price above average total costs
| Evidence on costs does not indicate predation

|}

The Competition Act of 1980 is also at the disposal of the Director General of the Office of Free Trade (OFT) for the prohibition of predatory pricing.

|-
| United States
| 0
| Though predatory pricing is formally prohibited, the law in the United States is riddled with exceptions that effectively eliminate the predatory pricing prohibition. The "recoupment test" is a notable example.<ref>See ''Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.'', 509 U.S. 209 (1993)</ref>

|-
| Uruguay
| 1
| Article 3(2)(c) of the Law of the Defense of the Competition prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>See Law of the Defense of the Competition, http://www.sice.oas.org/compol/natleg/Uruguay/dec1503.asp#DECRETO</ref>

|-
| Uzbekistan
| 1
| Article 5 prohibits a firm from setting a monopolistic low price, which is defined as the price of a good consciously set by the undertaking, with dominant position in the market as a seller, at a level bringing the losses from sale of a given good, result of which is or may be the restriction of competition by means of driving the competitors out of the market.

|-
| Venezuela
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found. Moreover, a secondary source suggests that no such prohibition exists.<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=2tsyQFzaj0UC&pg=RA1-PA349&lpg=RA1-PA349&dq=venezuela+predatory+pricing&source=web&ots=lrCQHugr38&sig=gol1a-LNF_pcCwR3vuIkFTIj1Rw</ref>

|-
| Vietnam
| 1
| Secondary source indicates Vietnam prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.freshfields.com/practice/comptrade/publications/pdf/10388.pdf</ref>

|-
| Zambia
| 1
| Article 7(2)(a) of The Competition and Fair Trading Act (1994) prohibits "predatory behaviour towards competition including the use of cost pricing to eliminate competitors."<ref>The Competition and Fair Trading Act (1994), http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/africa/Zambia/COMPETITION%20anDFAIR%20TRADING%20ACT.PDF</ref>

|-
| Zimbabwe
| 1
| Amendment 14 of 2001 to the The Competition Act of 1996 prohibits "[s]elling at very low prices or at below production costs as a deliberate strategy of driving competitors off the market."

|}

== References ==

<references />

Predatory Pricing Report

2009-02-07T13:53:05Z

Kajrozga:

{| class="wikitable"

|-
! Country
! Predatory Pricing Prohibition
! Comment

|-
| Albania
| 1
| Article 9(2)(d) of Law No. 9121, dated July 28, 2003 on Competition Protection prohibits "the undercutting of prices or other conditions which have as their object or effect the prevention of entry or the expulsion from the market for specific competitor(s) or one of their products . . . ."

|-
| Algeria
| 1
| § 3(16) of the OECD report on Competition Law and Policy in Algeria indicates they prohibit predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/50/26369606.pdf</ref>

|-
| Angola
|0
|

|-
| Argentina
| 0
|

|-
| Armenia
| 0
|

|-
| Australia
| 1
| "Predatory pricing is unlawful under § 46(1) of the Trade Practices Act." <ref> Australian Competition and Consumer Commission web site, http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/322986/fromItemId/3669</ref>

|-
| Austria
| 1
| §31(1)(5) of the Federal Act of 19 October 1988 on Cartels and other Restrictive Trade Practices prohibits the sale of goods below cost price when it cannot be justified on material grounds.

|-
| Azerbaijan
| 0
|

|-
| Bangladesh
| 0
| ''Bangladesh has no competition law in force.''

|-
| Barbados
| 1
| Article 16(3)(d) of the Fair Competition Act (2002) prohibits enterprise actions which "directly or indirectly imposes unfair purchase or selling prices that are excessive, unreasonable, discriminatory or '''predatory''' ..."<ref>http://www.commerce.gov.bb/Legislation/Documents/Fair%20Competition%20Act,%20Cap%20326C.pdf</ref>

|-
| Belarus
| 1
| Article 5 prohibits "fixing or maintaining prices <b>(underpinning the market)</b> for deriving monopolistic high profit or removal of competitors ..."<ref>http://law.by/work/EnglPortal.nsf/6e1a652fbefce34ac2256d910056d559/4dd2237ccbd3b4e6c2256dc1002932c6?OpenDocument</ref><ref>World Bank, Competition Law Database, http://go.worldbank.org/SMDO288DV0</ref>

|-
| Belgium
| 1
| Articles 40-41 of The Commercial Practices Act of July 14, 1991 forbid reselling products at a loss.<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-518)</ref>

|-
| Bolivia
| 0
|

|-
| Bosnia-Herzegovina
| 1
| Act on Competition of 2005 is supplemented by the '''Regulation on Definition of a Dominant Posision of 2006'''. Article 9(c) of this by-law prohibits "fixing a price of the product or service below the production costs with the view to eliminate the competitors."<ref>http://www.bihkonk.gov.ba/en/laws/low_on_competition_new.pdf</ref>

|-
| Brazil
| 1
| Article 21(18) of Law # 8884 OF JUNE 11, 1994 prohibits a dominant from to unreasonably sell products below cost.

|-
| Bulgaria
| 0
| Bulgaria prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Burkina Faso
| 0
|

|-
| Canada
| 1
| § 50(1)(c) of Competition Act of August 23, 2000 prohibits engaging in "a policy of selling products at prices unreasonably low, having the effect or tendency of substantially lessening competition or eliminating a competitor."

|-
| Cambodia
| 0
|

|-
| Cameroon
| 0
|

|-
| Chile
| 1
| The Antitrust Commission has fined firms for engaging in predatory pricing.<ref>Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, Competition Law and Policy in Chile, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/53/24955980.pdf and Global Competition Review website, http://globalcompetitionreview.com/ara/chile.cfm</ref>

|-
| China
| 1
| Law of the People’s Republic of China for Countering Unfair Competition of September 2, 1993 states that "an operator shall not sell its or his goods at a price that is below the cost for the purpose of excluding its or his competitors."

|-
| Colombia
| 1
| Prohibited by article 67 of Law no. 108/05 of May 3, 2006.<ref>http://go.worldbank.org/7P3DRBYZI0</ref>

|-
| Costa Rica
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Cote d'Ivoire
| 0
| Article 24 of Law No. 91-999 of December 27, 1991 on Competition prohibits loss leader selling, but not predatory pricing. <ref>Report on United Nations Conference on Trade and development of 24 November 1997, available at, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2emd11.pdf</ref>

|-
| Croatia
| 0
| No evidence was found of a predatory pricing provision in the Competition Act of July 15, 2003. The Croatian Law on the Protection of Market Competition of July 14, 1995 did prohibit predatory pricing, however. <ref> USAID Croatia Commercial Law Assessment Report, March 2002, http://www.bizlawreform.com/country_assess/Croatia%20Assessment.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Cyprus
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Czech Republic
| 1
| Article 11(1)(e) of the Consolidated Act on the Protection of Competition, ACT No. 143/2001 Coll. of April 4 2001 last amended by Act No. 484/2004 Coll. of 5 August 2004, prohibits by a Dominant firm "consistent offer and sale of goods for unfairly low prices, which results or may result in distortion of competition." <ref>http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2clp50_en.pdf; http://www.compet.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/Legislativa/legislativa_EN/Act_143_2004.doc</ref>

|-
| Denmark
| 1
| The Danish Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Supervision Act of 1955 forbids predatory pricing.<ref>Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/54/2375661.pdf (p. 33)</ref>

|-
| Dominican Republic
| 0
|

|-
| Ecuador
| 0
|

|-
| Egypt
| 1
| Article 8(h) of the Law on the Protection of Competition and the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices prohibits selling products below their marginal cost or average variable cost.

|-
| El Salvador
| 1
| Article 30(c) - "The systematic reduction of prices, below the cost price, with the purpose of eliminating one or several competitors, or impeding the entry or expansion of the same."<ref>http://www.minec.gob.sv/leyes/LeydeCompetencia_english_.pdf</ref>

|-
| Estonia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| EU Generally<ref>Information for this section has been gleaned from '''The EC law of Competition''' (eds. Jonathan Faull and Ali Nikpay)</ref>
| 1
| Article 82 (formerly Article 86) of the EC Treaty prohibits predatory pricing. The Commission began prosecuting predatory pricing in 1985, in the ''AKZO'' case.<ref>''AKZO'' [1985] OJ L374/1.</ref> This case led to the establishment of a two-pronged test for predatory pricing. A firm was guilty of the offense if it either:
# Sets the price at below average variable cost. This amounts to a per se assumption of abusive behavior.
# Sets the price at below average total cost, but above average variable cost. This is also assumed to be predatory, but requires a specific plan by the firm to eliminate competitors.

|-
| Faroe Island
| 0
|

|-
| Fiji
| 1
| The Commerce Commission "reserves its right to investigate any predatory pricing in breach
of section 37 of the Fair Trading Decree 1992." <ref>Official government sources: http://www.fiji.gov.fj/publish/page_7074.shtml; http://www.commcomm.gov.fj/docs/061001-postFijiDetermination.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Finland
| 1
| Article 7(4) of the Act on Competition Restrictions (480/1992) makes, "a pricing practice which is unreasonable or obviously aimed at restricting competition" an abuse of a dominant position.<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. II-363-64)</ref>

|-
| France
|1
| French Competition Act (Ordinance no. 86-1243 of December 1, 1986 (amended July 9, 1999)
"Article 10-1: Price offers or price practices with respect to consumer sales prices that are abusively low in relation to the costs of production, transformation, and marketing are prohibited, since these offers or practices have as their purpose, or may have as their effect, to eliminate from a market or to prevent access to a market by an enterprise or one of its products."

(Note: This Article has been used only rarely by enforcement agencies.) <ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-190)</ref>

|-
| Germany
|1
| § 20(4) of Act Against Restraints of Competition, as amended August 26 1998, states that dominant firms cannot use their market power to hinder competitors in an "unfair manner," which occurs when a firm "offers goods or services not merely occasionally below its cost price . . . ."<ref>http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/europe/Germany/Act%20Against%20Restrainst%20of%20Competition.pdf</ref>

|-
| Georgia
|0
|

|-
| Greece
| 1
| As of August 3, 2000, Courts have interpreted predatory pricing as an abuse of a dominant position.<ref>Competition Law in the EU, p. 605 (citing Competition Commission Decisions 232/95 P.Lambropoulos&Co. Priv. Partn.; 264/95 Protoporia Publications Litd.</ref>

|-
| Greenland
|0
|

|-
| Guatemala
| 1
| Article 341 of the Criminal Code, Decree No. 17-73, prohibits "the sale of goods of any kind at a price below their cost, in order to prevent free competition in the domestic market."<ref>FTAA report, Inventory of Domestic Laws and Regulations relating to Competition Policy in the Western Hemisphere, March 22, 2002, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp</ref>

|-
| Guyana
|0
|

|-
| Honduras
| 1
|Article 7(6) prohibits the fixing of prices below cost to eliminate competitors. <ref>http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:21326341~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html</ref>

|-
| Hong Kong
| 1
| Article 7(a) of The Competition Policy Advisory Group Statement on Competition Policy, May 1998 lists predatory pricing as an example of an abuse of a dominant position.

|-
| Hungary
| 1
| Article 21(h) of Act LVII of 1996 on the Prohibition of Unfair and Restrictive Market Practices as amended, effective November 1, 2005 makes it prohibited to "set extremely low prices which are not based on greater efficiency in comparison with that of competitors and which are likely to drive out competitors from the relevant market or to hinder their market entry[.]" The prohibition on predatory pricing, however, can be traced back to the original draft of the Act, as entered into force January 1 1997.<ref>ANNUAL REPORT ON COMPETITION LAW AND POLICY DEVELOPMENTS IN HUNGARY at p. 5, published by the Hungarian Comeptition Authority, 1998. Viewable at www.gvh.hu/domain2/files/modules/module25/pdf/GVH_OGy_beszamolo_1997_a.pdf</ref>

|-
| Iceland
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing was found in the statute. Moreover, predatory pricing has been reported as an ongoing practice by certain firms.<ref>http://www.icelandexpress.com/about_us/press/2004/ice_wars_icelandairs_dirty_trick_campaign_takes_a_different_turn/</ref>

|-
| India
| 1
| § 4(2)(ii) of the The Competition Act, 2002, No. 12 of 2003 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Indonesia
| 1
| Article 21 of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5 of 1999 has been interpreted to forbid dominant firms from imposing predatory pricing.<ref>East Asia Competition Policy Forum reports, http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/01/indonesia_progress_sutrisno.030503.pdf, http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/01/pprs.pdf; Also see United Nation Conference on Trade and Development report of January 29 2002, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2clp25.en.pdf </ref> Article 7 explicitly prohibits predatory pricing agreements between firms.

|-
| Ireland
| 0
| The enforcement agency has investigated an alleged abuse of predatory pricing, but found it did not constitute an abuse and was instead, "intense competition."<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/50/37028481.pdf, 12</ref>

|-
| Iran
| 0
|

|-
| Israel
| 1
| The Restrictive Trade Practices Law 5748 of 1988 prohibits "excessive or predatory pricing of the product under
a monopoly."<ref>http://www.lexmundi.com/images/lexmundi/PDF/guide_israel.pdf</ref>

|-
| Italy
| 0
| Italy has no prohibition on predatory pricing. However, "it is foreseeable that the same principles set forth in EC law to prohibit predatory price cutting by a dominant undertaking may be applied."<ref>Competition Law in the EU, Vol. 1, 384.</ref>

|-
| Jamaica
| 0
|

|-
| Japan
| 0
| Japan prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Jersey, Channel Islands
| 0
| Jersey prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Jordan
| 0
| Prohibited by Articles 6.A and 6.C of the Competition Law of 2004.<ref>World Bank Competition Law Database: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:21001779~menuPK:2137510~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html</ref>

|-
| Kazakhstan
| 1
| Article 10(1)of the 2006 Law of the Republic of Kazahkstan on Competition and Restriction of Monopolistic Activities<ref>Statute provided from the World Bank at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCOMPLEGALDB/Resources/CompetitivenesandMonopolyRestrictionLaw20060707_eng.pdf</ref> prohibits excessively low price setting.

|-
| Kenya
| 1
| Article 10(3)(a) of The Restrictive Trade Practices, Monopolies and Price Control Act of 1990 prohibits selling below average variable cost.

|-
| Kyrgystan
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Lao PDR
| 0
|

|-
| Latvia
| 0
| Latvia has no explicit prohibition on predatory pricing. However, "[p]redatory pricing by definition as a practice aimed at hindrance, restriction or distortion of competition would qualify as an abuse of dominant position.<ref>Dace Silava-Tomsone, Getting the Deal Through – Dominance 2006, http://www.lt-v.lv/pdf/Latvia_dace.pdf</ref>

|-
| Lithuania
| 1
| Lithuania's competition authority includes predatory pricing in its definition of an abuse of a dominant position. This definition is found in a May 17 2000 intra-agency bylaw,<ref>http://www.konkuren.lt/english/antitrust/legislation_resoliution_52.htm</ref> a supplement to their more general competition legislation.<ref>http://www.konkuren.lt/english/antitrust/legislation.htm</ref>

|-
| Luxembourg
| 1
| Below cost selling of goods and services is prohibited under the Act on Commercial Practices, Unfair Competition and Comparative Advertising (July 2002).<ref>http://www.entemp.ie/publications/commerce/2005/groceriesorder/chapter9.pdf</ref>

|-
| Malawi
| 1
| Article 32(2)(a) of the Malawi Competition and Fair Trading Bill of 1998 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Mali
| 1
| Article 17 of Ordonnance N°92-021/P-CTSP Instituant la Liberte des Prix et de la Concurrence, dated April 13, 1992 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Malta
| 1
| Article 9(2)(b) of Chapter 379 Competition Act of February 1 1995 forbids "charg[ing] prices which are below the average variable cost price of a product in order to drive rival competitors out of the market[.]"

|-
| Mauritius
| 1
| Article 11(2)(a) of The Competition Bill N° VI of 2003 prohibits below-cost selling by a dominant firm.

|-
| Macedonia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Mexico
| 1
| Article 7 of the Regulations of the Federal Law on Economic Competition of March 4, 1998 prohibits price setting below market price.

|-
| Moldova
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Mongolia
| 1
| Article 4(3) of the Law of Mongolia on Prohibiting Unfair Competition prohibits a firm from selling own goods at a price lower than the cost.

|-
| Morocco
| 1
| Article 7 of Dahir no. 1-00-225 of 2 rabil I 1421 promulgating law no. 06-99, concerning freedom of prices and competition, prohibits pricing offers or abusive practices in pricing sales to consumers that are low compared to production costs, distribution costs, and promotion costs, when these offers or practices are meant to or may have the effect of eliminating a market.

|-
| Namibia
| 0
|

|-
| Netherlands
| 0
| Dutch law does not forbid resale at a loss, either. <ref>Competition Law in the EU, Vol. 1, 445.</ref>

|-
| New Zealand
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that New Zealand's general test for predatory pricing is similar to the US, in that they ask, "is there below-cost price cutting with a view to recouping losses without loss of market share by raising prices without fear of reprisals afterwards?"<ref>http://www.luc.edu/law/academics/special/center/antitrust/pdfs/berry_nz_summary.pdf</ref>

|-
| Nicaragua
| 1
| Article 19(h) prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.dgpsa.gob.ni/biblioteca/biblioteca_archivos/449/Ley%20601.%20Ley%20%20de%20promocion%20de%20la%20competencia..pdf</ref>

|-
| Nigeria
| 0
|

|-
| Norway
| 1
| Though unclear which specific provision it uses, the Norwegin Competition Authority has recently held numerous proceedings for predatory pricing violations.<ref>http://sec.edgar-online.com/2005/04/15/0001156973-05-000475/Section4.asp; http://competition.practicallaw.com/7-201-3648; http://ld.practicallaw.com/4-208-8975</ref>.

|-
| Pakistan
| 0
|

|-
| Panama
| 1
| "Any predatory action taken unilaterally . . . when said action cannot reasonably be expected to generate or increase earnings, but rather to encourage the competitor or potential competitor to stop competing . . . leaving the agent with substantial power or in a monopolistic position . . ."<ref>FTAA - Negotiating Group on Competition Policy Inventory of Domestic Laws and Regulations relating to Competition Policy in the Western Hemisphere, March 22 2002, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp</ref>

|-
| Papua and New Guinea
| 0
|

|-
| Paraguay
| 0
|

|-
| Philippines
| 0
|

|-
| Peru
| 1
| The Competition Policy Commission initiated proceedings for predatory pricing in ''Tabacalera Nacional S.A. against British American Tabacco (South America) Limited – Perú''.<ref>OECD Global Forum on Competition CONTRIBUTION FROM PERU, October 4 2001, http://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=Predatory_Pricing_Report&action=edit</ref>

|-
| Poland
| 1
| Article 15.1(1) of the The Act on Combating Unfair Competition of April 16 1993 prohibits "the sale of goods or services below their purchase cost in order to eliminate other entrepreneurs."<ref>http://www.uokik.gov.pl/download/Z2Z4L3Vva2lrL2VuL2RlZmF1bHRfb3Bpc3kudjAvNTIvMS8xLzIwMDdfMDFfMTZfdXpua19fZW5nbGlzaF92ZXJzaW9uLnBkZg</ref> Article 8(2)(1) of The Act on Protection of Competition and Consumers of December 15 2000 prohibits "direct or indirect imposition of unfair prices, including predatory prices or prices glaringly low."<ref>http://www.konsument.gov.pl/files/ccp_act.pdf</ref>

|-
| Portugal
| 1
| Decree-Law 370/93 of October 29, 1993 (as amended by Decree-Law 140/98 on May 16 1998) forbids selling goods at a price below the actual price of purchase (plus taxes and transportation costs).<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-326)</ref>

|-
| Romania
| 1
| Article 6(f) of The Parliament of Romania Competition Law of 1996 explicitly prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Russia
| 1
| Article 7 of Law no. 135 on the Protection of Competition prohibits a dominant firm from setting a price that is lower than the sum of expenses necessary for production and sale of the commodity.

|-
| Saudi Arabia
| 1
| Article 5(1) of the Competition Law of 2004 prohibits "selling a commodity or service at a price below cost, with the intention of forcing competitors out of the market."

|-
| Senegal
| 0
|

|-
| Serbia-Montenegro
| 0
|

|-
| Singapore
| 1
| Singapore authorities have clarified that Article 47(2)(a) of No. 46 Competition Act of 2004 includes prohibition ofpredatory pricing.<ref>http://app.mti.gov.sg/default.asp?id=148&articleID=107; http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN025141.pdf</ref>

|-
| Slovak Republic
| 1
| The Slovak Republic forbids abusive acts by a dominant firm seeking to exclude competition.<ref>136/2001 Coll. ACT of 27 February 2001 on Protection of Competition and on Amendments and Supplements to Act of the Slovak National Council No. 347/1990 Coll. (Article 8(2)(e))</ref> The Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic (their enforcement agency) has used this provision to prosecute temporary predatory pricing of fuels as early as September 26 2001,<ref>Decision No. 2001/DZ/P/2/283 issued by Chairman of the Office on September 26, 2001 (http://www.antimon.gov.sk/eng/article.aspx?c=395&a=2139</ref> but the decision was never given effect, as the defendant discontinued its pricing scheme.

|-
| Slovenia
| 0
| No predatory pricing provision found. Office for Protection of Competition received one complaint of predatory pricing against Produkcija Plus d.o.o. - RTV Slovenia d.o.o. on 2/20/01. However, the complaint was dismissed (Office did not rule on the merits).<ref>http://www.uvk.gov.si/fileadmin/uvk.gov.si/pageuploads/Enforcement_Record_2001.pdf</ref>

|-
| South Africa
| 1
| Section 8(d)(iv) of the South African Competition Act 89 of 1998 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| South Korea
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that predatory pricing is prohibited.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=9aSrAg57v-oC&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq=korea+predatory+pricing&source=web&ots=Ha4I_DL5gr&sig=uPTcGF0DqgytzhKgN4wMY9_J0KcDeregulation Deregulation and Interdependence in the Asia-Pacific Region by Anne O. Krueger, Takatoshi Itō]</ref>

|-
| Spain
| 1
| There are two cases where the courts have issued fines for predatory pricing:

1. General Electric Espana[20], December 30 1991, - GE's local affiliate was fined Pta 15 million (~90,000 euros)<ref>TDC Dec. 295/91, or December 30, 1991</ref>

2. Arbora/Ausonia, January 7 1992<ref>TDC Dec. 291/90, January 7, 1992</ref>

Predatory pricing, presumably, is covered by common law because there is no mention of it in the Spanish competition laws.

Note: More recently, Telefónica, a Spanish firm, was fined by £102.6m (€152m) by the EU competition agency.<ref>http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/government-law/legislation/news/index.cfm?newsid=3865</ref>

|-
| Sri Lanka
| 1
| Anti-competitive practices prohibited by the Fair Trading Commission Act No. 1 of 1987 includes predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/articles/sri_lankan/HTML/CV39.html</ref>In Ceylon Oxygen Co. Ltd. V. Fair Trading Commission And Another, the Commission considered a predatory pricing complaint.<ref>http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/case_law/slr/HTML/1997SLR2V372.htm</ref>

|-
| Sweden
| 0
| No predatory pricing provision found.

|-
| Switzerland
| 1
| Article 7(2) of the Federal Act on Cartels and Other Restraints of Competition of October 6, 1995 prohibits "the under-cutting of prices or other conditions directed against a specific competitor."

|-
| Taiwan
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that competition law in Taiwan stipulates that enterprises in dominant market positions should not improperly fix, maintain or change the price of the goods and services, and that ''predatory pricing definitely belongs to improperly fixing price''.<ref>http://www.jurist.org.cn/doc/uclaw200512/uclaw20051206.pdf</ref>

|-
| Tajikistan
| 1
| Article 4 prohibits a dominant firm from setting low prices.

|-
| Tanzania
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Thailand
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that predatory pricing is an unfair practice under Thai Guidelines.<ref>http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/05/APECTrainingProgramDecember2004/Kalampakorn_Thai.pdf</ref>

|-
| Tunisia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Turkey
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Ukraine
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| United Kingdom
| 1
| Chapter II of the Fair Trading Act of 1973 prohibits predatory pricing. The OFT has published the following guidelines to assess whether pricing schemes are predatory:<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. II-63)</ref>

{| class="wikitable"

|-
| Price below average variable cost
| Predation can be assumed

|-
| Price below average variable cost but below average total cost
| Evidence on costs may indicate predation but evidence required of intention to eliminate a competitor before predation could be found

|-
| Price above average total costs
| Evidence on costs does not indicate predation

|}

The Competition Act of 1980 is also at the disposal of the Director General of the Office of Free Trade (OFT) for the prohibition of predatory pricing.

|-
| United States
| 0
| Though predatory pricing is formally prohibited, the law in the United States is riddled with exceptions that effectively eliminate the predatory pricing prohibition. The "recoupment test" is a notable example.<ref>See ''Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.'', 509 U.S. 209 (1993)</ref>

|-
| Uruguay
| 1
| Article 3(2)(c) of the Law of the Defense of the Competition prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>See Law of the Defense of the Competition, http://www.sice.oas.org/compol/natleg/Uruguay/dec1503.asp#DECRETO</ref>

|-
| Uzbekistan
| 1
| Article 5 prohibits a firm from setting a monopolistic low price, which is defined as the price of a good consciously set by the undertaking, with dominant position in the market as a seller, at a level bringing the losses from sale of a given good, result of which is or may be the restriction of competition by means of driving the competitors out of the market.

|-
| Venezuela
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found. Moreover, a secondary source suggests that no such prohibition exists.<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=2tsyQFzaj0UC&pg=RA1-PA349&lpg=RA1-PA349&dq=venezuela+predatory+pricing&source=web&ots=lrCQHugr38&sig=gol1a-LNF_pcCwR3vuIkFTIj1Rw</ref>

|-
| Vietnam
| 1
| Secondary source indicates Vietnam prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.freshfields.com/practice/comptrade/publications/pdf/10388.pdf</ref>

|-
| Zambia
| 1
| Article 7(2)(a) of The Competition and Fair Trading Act (1994) prohibits "predatory behaviour towards competition including the use of cost pricing to eliminate competitors."<ref>The Competition and Fair Trading Act (1994), http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/africa/Zambia/COMPETITION%20anDFAIR%20TRADING%20ACT.PDF</ref>

|-
| Zimbabwe
| 1
| Amendment 14 of 2001 to the The Competition Act of 1996 prohibits "[s]elling at very low prices or at below production costs as a deliberate strategy of driving competitors off the market."

|}

== References ==

<references />

Brazil 2000

2009-02-05T21:18:42Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 22'''

''Governed by:'' Law No. 8884 of June 11 1994<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/s_america/Brazil/Legisla%E7%E3o%20Antitruste%20em%20ingl%EAs.PDF; http://www.seae.fazenda.gov.br/document_center/legislation/brazilian-antitrust-law.pdf</ref> last amended by Law No. 10149 of December 21, 2000<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.fazenda.gov.br/seae/english/Legislation/law.pdf; http://www.seae.fazenda.gov.br/document_center/legislation/law.pdf</ref> (all hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Article 2 says that the Act applies to anything that has an effect within Brazil.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Articles 23-27 imposes fines for certain violations.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Articles 29 and 30 provides a cause of action and possible remedies for injured 3rd parties.

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 1
| Article 29 provides a cause of action and possible remedies for injured 3rd parties.

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Article 54(4)<ref>The 1994 Act does not specify that the provisions of Article 54 are meant to apply to mergers and acquisitions but this is made clear in the 2000 amendment</ref> requires notification of mergers.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 0
|

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 1
| Article 54(4) says that the notification must come 15 days after the merger.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| Article 54(3) defines a dominant position post-merger as a firm holding more than 20% of relevant market share.

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Article 54 prohibits merger agreements that restrict competition.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 1
| Article 54(I)(c) allows an exception to the prohibition if the agreement increases efficiency.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Article 21(VI) prohibits limiting access of competitors to input, material, or equipment.

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 20(IV) prohibits the abuse of one’s market control.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Article 21(I) prohibits price setting.

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Article 21(XII) prohibits discriminatory pricing.

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 1
| Article 21(XI) prohibits RPM.

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 1
| Article 21(IV) prohibits limiting market access by new companies.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 21(I) prohibits price fixing.

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Article 21(XXIII) prohibits tying arrangements.

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Article 21(III) prohibits market apportionment.

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 21(X) prohibits limiting production and development.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 0
|

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| Article 21(V) prohibits posing difficulties for the development of a competitor company.

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| Article 21(VIII) prohibits bid-rigging for public contracts.

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 1
| Article 21(XIII) prohibits supply refusal.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|}

== References ==
<references />

Brazil 1994

2009-02-05T21:18:33Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 19'''

''Governed by:'' Law No. 8884 of June 11 1994<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/s_america/Brazil/Legisla%E7%E3o%20Antitruste%20em%20ingl%EAs.PDF; http://www.seae.fazenda.gov.br/document_center/legislation/brazilian-antitrust-law.pdf</ref>(hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Article 2 says that the Act applies to anything that has an effect within Brazil.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Articles 23-27 imposes fines for certain violations.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Articles 29 and 30 provides a cause of action and possible remedies for injured 3rd parties.

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 1
| Article 29 provides a cause of action and possible remedies for injured 3rd parties.

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
| The 1994 Act does not explicitly require notification of mergers. Article 54(4) was made an explicit requirement as to mergers only in the 2000 amendments.

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 0
|

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 0
|

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| Article 54(3) defines a dominant position post-merger as a firm holding more than 20% of relevant market share.

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Article 54 prohibits merger agreements that restrict competition.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 1
| Article 54(I)(c) allows an exception to the prohibition if the agreement increases efficiency.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Article 21(VI) prohibits limiting access of competitors to input, material, or equipment.

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 20(IV) prohibits the abuse of one’s market control.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Article 21(I) prohibits price setting.

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Article 21(XII) prohibits discriminatory pricing.

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 1
| Article 21(XI) prohibits RPM.

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 1
| Article 21(IV) prohibits limiting market access by new companies.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 21(I) prohibits price fixing.

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Article 21(XXIII) prohibits tying arrangements.

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Article 21(III) prohibits market apportionment.

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 21(X) prohibits limiting production and development.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 0
|

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| Article 21(V) prohibits posing difficulties for the development of a competitor company.

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| Article 21(VIII) prohibits bid-rigging for public contracts.

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 1
| Article 21(XIII) prohibits supply refusal.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|}

== References ==
<references />

Panama (1996, 1998)

2009-02-03T21:35:37Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 18'''

''Governed by:'' Law 29 of February 1, 1996, whereby rules on the Protection of Competition are established and other measures are adopted (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”)<ref>Own translation of Competition Act, as available at: http://www.sice.oas.org/compol/natleg/Panama/L29.asp</ref> and Executive Decree No. 31 of September 3, 1998 on Regulations of Title I (Monopoly) and other provisions of Law 29 (hereinafter referred to as “Monopoly Decree”).
<ref>Own translation of Monopoly Decree, as available at:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCOMPLEGALDB/Resources/500.pdf</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Article 112 allows fining for various violations of the Act.<ref>FTAA report, Inventory of Domestic Laws and Regulations relating to Competition Policy in the Western Hemisphere, March 22, 2002, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp</ref>

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Article 26 allows Commission to divest improper mergers.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Article 142 gives any concerned person the capacity to file a claim.<ref>FTAA report, Inventory of Domestic Laws and Regulations relating to Competition Policy in the Western Hemisphere, March 22, 2002, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp</ref>

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 1
| Article 142 allows actions seeking compensation for damages.<ref>Id</ref>

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 1
| Chapter III of the Competition Act and Article 14 of the Monopoly Decree allow for voluntary notification of concentrations.

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 0
|

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 0
|

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 1
| Article 14 of the Monopoly Decree states that voluntary notification does not preclude companies from continuing in the concentration pending a decision by the Authority.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Article 19 prohibits mergers that have the effect of impeding competition.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Article 14(e) prohibits “unilateral action consisting in refusing to sell or provide, to certain persons, goods or services.”

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 0
|

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Article 14(b) prohibits prices setting.

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Article 8(7) of the Monopoly Decree prohibits discriminatory pricing.

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 1
| Article 14(b) prohibits resale price maintenance

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 1
| Article 14(g) prohibits predatory actions taken to prevent a potential competitor from entering the market.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| All the relative monopolistic practices (Articles 8 and 14) can be allowed when they are justified in terms of economic efficiency.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 11(a) of the Act prohibits price fixing.

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Article 14(c) prohibits tying arrangements.

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Article 11(c) prohibits market division.

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 11(b) prohibits output restraint.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| Article 14(a) prohibits market sharing.

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| Article 14(g) prohibits predatory actions taken to squeeze a competitor out of a market.

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| Article 11(d) prohibits bid rigging.

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| All the relative monopolistic practices (Articles 8 and 14) can be allowed when they are justified in terms of economic efficiency.

|}

== References ==
<references />

Panama (2006)

2009-02-03T21:24:40Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 21 '''

''Governed by:'' Law 29 of February 1, 1996, as amended by Law 9 of February 20, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”)<ref>Own translation of Competition Act, as available at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:21081222~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html; for secondary source analysis in English, see http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:21080815~menuPK:2137516~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Article 2<ref>all references are to the Competition Act unless otherwise indicated</ref> states that the scope of the law extends to all acts or practices having an effect in Panama, regardless of where they develop.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Article 27 allows for treble damages plus costs and Article 112 dictates fines for various violations of the Act.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Article 26(2) allows total or partial divestitures of improper mergers.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Article 142 gives any affected or concerned person the capacity to file a claim.
|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 1
| Article 142 allows actions seeking compensation for damages.

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 1
| Article 20 allow for voluntary notification of concentrations.

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 0
|

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
| Article 20 allows for voluntary notification of concentrations before realization. The Competition Authority has 3 years to challenge any realized concentrations of which it was not voluntarily notified beforehand (Article 22).

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| Article 25(2) mandates that market power and degree of concentration be taken into account when determining which concentrations shall be challenged or sanctioned.

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Article 19 prohibits mergers that have the effect of impeding competition.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 1
| Article 19 allows for an efficiency defense if the concentration would yield certain benefits like increasing the production or distribution of goods and services, promoting technical or economic progress or driving the competitive development of an industry or sector.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Article 14(5) prohibits “unilateral action consisting in refusing to sell or provide, to certain persons, goods or services.”

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 0
|

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Article 11(1) prohibits prices setting.

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Article 8(7) of the Monopoly Decree of 1998 prohibited discriminatory pricing.<ref>http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCOMPLEGALDB/Resources/500.pdf</ref> Article 14 of the Competition Act prohibits general discriminatory practices.

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 1
| Article 14(2) prohibits resale price maintenance

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 1
| Article 14(7) prohibits predatory actions taken to prevent a potential competitor from entering the market.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 4-A allows for a defense if the act, agreement, partnership, association or contract gives rise to increased economic efficiency and is not detrimental to the consumer.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 11(1) of the Act prohibits price fixing.

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Article 14(3) prohibits tying arrangements.

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Article 11(3) prohibits market division.

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 11(2) prohibits output restraint.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| Article 14(1) prohibits market sharing.

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| Article 14(7) prohibits predatory actions taken to squeeze a competitor out of a market.

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| Article 11(4) prohibits bid rigging.

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 4-A allows for a defense if the act, agreement, partnership, association or contract gives rise to increased economic efficiency and is not detrimental to the consumer.

|}

== References ==
<references />

Nicaragua 2006

2009-02-03T21:11:23Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 20'''

''Governed by:'' Law of Promotion of Competition (Law No. 601, approved on September 28, 2006)<ref>http://www.dgpsa.gob.ni/biblioteca/biblioteca_archivos/449/Ley%20601.%20Ley%20%20de%20promocion%20de%20la%20competencia..pdf</ref><ref>NOTE: The analysis of this statute is based upon our own translation.</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Article 2 of the Competition Law extends to firms located outside Nicaragua.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Article 45.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Article 28(c).

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 0
|

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 1
| Article 41 (?)

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Article 25.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
| Article 25.

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| Article 26.

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Article 26.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 1
| Article 4(d).

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 1
| Article 26 has an exception for business failure.

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 1
| Article 4(b).

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 0
|

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 19.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 0
|

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Article 19(f).

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 1
| Article 19(b).

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 4(b).

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 18(a).

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Article 19(c), 19(d).

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Article 18(b).

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 18(d).

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 0
|

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| Article 18(c)

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| Article 18(e).

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 1
| Article 19(e).

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 4(b).

|}

== References ==
<references />

El Salvador (January 1, 2006)

2009-02-03T21:10:41Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 18'''

''Governed by:'' Competition Law of December 2004, came into effect 1 January 2006<ref>http://www.minec.gob.sv/leyes/LeydeCompetencia_english_.pdf</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Article 2.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Article 38 provides for fines if prohibitions in the statute are violated.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Articles 40-42 say that a 3rd party can compel the enforcement agency to begin an investigation.

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 0
|

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Article 33 says firms of a certain size must request authorization.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
| Article 33

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| Article 33 considers the size of the resulting firm.

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 1
| Article 34 talks about consumer benefits as well as market efficiency.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 1
| Article 34

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 0
|

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 30 leaves other possible abusive acts open.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 0
|

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Article 30(d)

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 1
| Article 30(a)

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 25(a)

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Article 26(a) & (b)

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Article 25(d) prohibits "Division of the market, either by territory, volume of sales or purchases, by type of good sold, customer or seller , or by any other means."

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 25(b) prohibits "Fixing or limiting quantity output."

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 0
|

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 0
|

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| Article 25(c)

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|}

== References ==
<references />

Honduras 2006

2009-02-03T20:55:42Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 20 '''

''Governed by:'' The Law for the Defense and Promotion of Competition, Decree No. 527-2005 of November 26, 2005, entered into force in January 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”)<ref>Own translation of Competition Act, as available at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:21326341~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html; for secondary source analysis in English, see http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:21326314~menuPK:2137514~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Article 4<ref>all references are to the Competition Act unless otherwise indicated</ref> states that the scope of the law extends to those whose activities have an effect within the national territory of Honduras.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Articles 37-39, 41 deal with fines.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Article 19(1) allows total or partial divestitures of improper mergers.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Article 49 allows outside parties to file complaints with the authority.
|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 1
| Article 58 allows all concerned parties to seek damages through civil actions.

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Article 13 requires mandatory notification of intended concentrations although prior verification is generally voluntary.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
| Article 13 requires notification to be pre-merger.

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| Article 16(1) requires market share of the agents involved in the concentration to be assessed regarding compliance with the law.

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Article 12 prohibits concentrations that have the purpose or effect of restricting, reducing, damaging or preventing competition.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 1
| Article 16(4) allows the authority to assess the need for the economic concentration as the only choice to prevent the involved agents' exit from the market.

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 1
| Article 12 allows for an efficiency defense for concentrations that generate increases in economic efficiency and consumer welfare.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Article 7(7) prohibits contracts, agreements, concerted practices or arrangements that limit the production, distribution or technological development by an operator to the detriment of other operators or consumers.

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 0
|

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 0
|

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 0
|

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 1
| Article 7(2) prohibits resale price maintenance.

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 9 allows agreements or behaviors that generate increases in economic efficiency and consumer welfare offseting the negative impact on free competition.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 5(1) states that price fixing is illegal per se.

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Article 7(4) prohibits tying.

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Article 7(1) prohibits market division.

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 5(2) makes contracts, agreements, concerted practices or arrangements that restrict all or part of the production, distribution, marketing or supply of goods or services illegal per se.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| Article 5(3) states that market sharing is illegal per se.

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 0
|

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| Article 5(4) states that acting in concert to either participate or abstain from tenders, quotations or public auctions is illegal per se.

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 1
| Article 5(2) makes contracts, agreements, concerted practices or arrangements that restrict all or part of the production, distribution, marketing or supply of goods or services illegal per se.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 9 allows agreements or behaviors that generate increases in economic efficiency and consumer welfare offseting the negative impact on free competition.

|}

== References ==
<references />

Predatory Pricing Report

2009-02-03T20:53:29Z

Kajrozga:

{| class="wikitable"

|-
! Country
! Predatory Pricing Prohibition
! Comment

|-
| Albania
| 1
| Article 9(2)(d) of Law No. 9121, dated July 28, 2003 on Competition Protection prohibits "the undercutting of prices or other conditions which have as their object or effect the prevention of entry or the expulsion from the market for specific competitor(s) or one of their products . . . ."

|-
| Algeria
| 1
| § 3(16) of the OECD report on Competition Law and Policy in Algeria indicates they prohibit predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/50/26369606.pdf</ref>

|-
| Angola
|0
|

|-
| Argentina
| 0
|

|-
| Armenia
| 0
|

|-
| Australia
| 1
| "Predatory pricing is unlawful under § 46(1) of the Trade Practices Act." <ref> Australian Competition and Consumer Commission web site, http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/322986/fromItemId/3669</ref>

|-
| Austria
| 1
| §31(1)(5) of the Federal Act of 19 October 1988 on Cartels and other Restrictive Trade Practices prohibits the sale of goods below cost price when it cannot be justified on material grounds.

|-
| Azerbaijan
| 0
|

|-
| Bangladesh
| 0
| ''Bangladesh has no competition law in force.''

|-
| Barbados
| 1
| Article 16(3)(d) of the Fair Competition Act (2002) prohibits enterprise actions which "directly or indirectly imposes unfair purchase or selling prices that are excessive, unreasonable, discriminatory or '''predatory''' ..."<ref>http://www.commerce.gov.bb/Legislation/Documents/Fair%20Competition%20Act,%20Cap%20326C.pdf</ref>

|-
| Belarus
| 1
| Article 5 prohibits "fixing or maintaining prices <b>(underpinning the market)</b> for deriving monopolistic high profit or removal of competitors ..."<ref>http://law.by/work/EnglPortal.nsf/6e1a652fbefce34ac2256d910056d559/4dd2237ccbd3b4e6c2256dc1002932c6?OpenDocument</ref><ref>World Bank, Competition Law Database, http://go.worldbank.org/SMDO288DV0</ref>

|-
| Belgium
| 1
| Articles 40-41 of The Commercial Practices Act of July 14, 1991 forbid reselling products at a loss.<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-518)</ref>

|-
| Bolivia
| 0
|

|-
| Bosnia-Herzegovina
| 1
| ''Act on Competition of 2005'' is supplemented by the '''Regulation on Definition of a Dominant Posision of 2006'''. Article 9(c) of this by-law prohibits "fixing a price of the product or service below the production costs with the view to eliminate the competitors."<ref>http://www.bihkonk.gov.ba/en/laws/low_on_competition_new.pdf</ref>

|-
| Brazil
| 1
| Article 21(18) of Law # 8884 OF JUNE 11, 1994 prohibits a dominant from to unreasonably sell products below cost.

|-
| Bulgaria
| 0
| Bulgaria prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Burkina Faso
| 0
|

|-
| Canada
| 1
| § 50(1)(c) of Competition Act of August 23, 2000 prohibits engaging in "a policy of selling products at prices unreasonably low, having the effect or tendency of substantially lessening competition or eliminating a competitor."

|-
| Cambodia
| 0
|

|-
| Cameroon
| 0
|

|-
| Chile
| 1
| The Antitrust Commission has fined firms for engaging in predatory pricing.<ref>Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, Competition Law and Policy in Chile, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/53/24955980.pdf and Global Competition Review website, http://globalcompetitionreview.com/ara/chile.cfm</ref>

|-
| China
| 1
| Law of the People’s Republic of China for Countering Unfair Competition of September 2, 1993 states that "an operator shall not sell its or his goods at a price that is below the cost for the purpose of excluding its or his competitors."

|-
| Colombia
| 1
| Prohibited by article 67 of Law no. 108/05 of May 3, 2006.<ref>http://go.worldbank.org/7P3DRBYZI0</ref>

|-
| Costa Rica
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Cote d'Ivoire
| 0
| Article 24 of Law No. 91-999 of December 27, 1991 on Competition prohibits loss leader selling, but not predatory pricing. <ref>Report on United Nations Conference on Trade and development of 24 November 1997, available at, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2emd11.pdf</ref>

|-
| Croatia
| 0
| No evidence was found of a predatory pricing provision in the Competition Act of July 15, 2003. The Croatian Law on the Protection of Market Competition of July 14, 1995 did prohibit predatory pricing, however. <ref> USAID Croatia Commercial Law Assessment Report, March 2002, http://www.bizlawreform.com/country_assess/Croatia%20Assessment.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Cyprus
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Czech Republic
| 1
| Article 11(1)(e) of the Consolidated Act on the Protection of Competition, ACT No. 143/2001 Coll. of April 4 2001 last amended by Act No. 484/2004 Coll. of 5 August 2004, prohibits by a Dominant firm "consistent offer and sale of goods for unfairly low prices, which results or may result in distortion of competition." <ref>http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2clp50_en.pdf; http://www.compet.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/Legislativa/legislativa_EN/Act_143_2004.doc</ref>

|-
| Denmark
| 1
| The Danish Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Supervision Act of 1955 forbids predatory pricing.<ref>Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/54/2375661.pdf (p. 33)</ref>

|-
| Dominican Republic
| 0
|

|-
| Ecuador
| 0
|

|-
| Egypt
| 1
| Article 8(h) of the Law on the Protection of Competition and the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices prohibits selling products below their marginal cost or average variable cost.

|-
| El Salvador
| 1
| Article 30(c) - "The systematic reduction of prices, below the cost price, with the purpose of eliminating one or several competitors, or impeding the entry or expansion of the same."<ref>http://www.minec.gob.sv/leyes/LeydeCompetencia_english_.pdf</ref>

|-
| Estonia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| EU Generally<ref>Information for this section has been gleaned from '''The EC law of Competition''' (eds. Jonathan Faull and Ali Nikpay)</ref>
| 1
| Article 82 (formerly Article 86) of the EC Treaty prohibits predatory pricing. The Commission began prosecuting predatory pricing in 1985, in the ''AKZO'' case.<ref>''AKZO'' [1985] OJ L374/1.</ref> This case led to the establishment of a two-pronged test for predatory pricing. A firm was guilty of the offense if it either:
# Sets the price at below average variable cost. This amounts to a per se assumption of abusive behavior.
# Sets the price at below average total cost, but above average variable cost. This is also assumed to be predatory, but requires a specific plan by the firm to eliminate competitors.

|-
| Faroe Island
| 0
|

|-
| Fiji
| 1
| The Commerce Commission "reserves its right to investigate any predatory pricing in breach
of section 37 of the Fair Trading Decree 1992." <ref>Official government sources: http://www.fiji.gov.fj/publish/page_7074.shtml; http://www.commcomm.gov.fj/docs/061001-postFijiDetermination.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Finland
| 1
| Article 7(4) of the Act on Competition Restrictions (480/1992) makes, "a pricing practice which is unreasonable or obviously aimed at restricting competition" an abuse of a dominant position.<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. II-363-64)</ref>

|-
| France
|1
| French Competition Act (Ordinance no. 86-1243 of December 1, 1986 (amended July 9, 1999)
"Article 10-1: Price offers or price practices with respect to consumer sales prices that are abusively low in relation to the costs of production, transformation, and marketing are prohibited, since these offers or practices have as their purpose, or may have as their effect, to eliminate from a market or to prevent access to a market by an enterprise or one of its products."

(Note: This Article has been used only rarely by enforcement agencies.) <ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-190)</ref>

|-
| Germany
|1
| § 20(4) of Act Against Restraints of Competition, as amended August 26 1998, states that dominant firms cannot use their market power to hinder competitors in an "unfair manner," which occurs when a firm "offers goods or services not merely occasionally below its cost price . . . ."<ref>http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/europe/Germany/Act%20Against%20Restrainst%20of%20Competition.pdf</ref>

|-
| Georgia
|0
|

|-
| Greece
| 1
| As of August 3, 2000, Courts have interpreted predatory pricing as an abuse of a dominant position.<ref>Competition Law in the EU, p. 605 (citing Competition Commission Decisions 232/95 P.Lambropoulos&Co. Priv. Partn.; 264/95 Protoporia Publications Litd.</ref>

|-
| Greenland
|0
|

|-
| Guatemala
| 1
| Article 341 of the Criminal Code, Decree No. 17-73, prohibits "the sale of goods of any kind at a price below their cost, in order to prevent free competition in the domestic market."<ref>FTAA report, Inventory of Domestic Laws and Regulations relating to Competition Policy in the Western Hemisphere, March 22, 2002, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp</ref>

|-
| Guyana
|0
|

|-
| Honduras
| 1
|Article 7(6) prohibits the fixing of prices below cost to eliminate competitors. <ref>http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:21326341~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html</ref>

|-
| Hong Kong
| 1
| Article 7(a) of The Competition Policy Advisory Group Statement on Competition Policy, May 1998 lists predatory pricing as an example of an abuse of a dominant position.

|-
| Hungary
| 1
| Article 21(h) of Act LVII of 1996 on the Prohibition of Unfair and Restrictive Market Practices as amended, effective November 1, 2005 makes it prohibited to "set extremely low prices which are not based on greater efficiency in comparison with that of competitors and which are likely to drive out competitors from the relevant market or to hinder their market entry[.]" The prohibition on predatory pricing, however, can be traced back to the original draft of the Act, as entered into force January 1 1997.<ref>ANNUAL REPORT ON COMPETITION LAW AND POLICY DEVELOPMENTS IN HUNGARY at p. 5, published by the Hungarian Comeptition Authority, 1998. Viewable at www.gvh.hu/domain2/files/modules/module25/pdf/GVH_OGy_beszamolo_1997_a.pdf</ref>

|-
| Iceland
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing was found in the statute. Moreover, predatory pricing has been reported as an ongoing practice by certain firms.<ref>http://www.icelandexpress.com/about_us/press/2004/ice_wars_icelandairs_dirty_trick_campaign_takes_a_different_turn/</ref>

|-
| India
| 1
| § 4(2)(ii) of the The Competition Act, 2002, No. 12 of 2003 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Indonesia
| 1
| Article 21 of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5 of 1999 has been interpreted to forbid dominant firms from imposing predatory pricing.<ref>East Asia Competition Policy Forum reports, http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/01/indonesia_progress_sutrisno.030503.pdf, http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/01/pprs.pdf; Also see United Nation Conference on Trade and Development report of January 29 2002, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2clp25.en.pdf </ref> Article 7 explicitly prohibits predatory pricing agreements between firms.

|-
| Ireland
| 0
| The enforcement agency has investigated an alleged abuse of predatory pricing, but found it did not constitute an abuse and was instead, "intense competition."<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/50/37028481.pdf, 12</ref>

|-
| Iran
| 0
|

|-
| Israel
| 1
| The Restrictive Trade Practices Law 5748 of 1988 prohibits "excessive or predatory pricing of the product under
a monopoly."<ref>http://www.lexmundi.com/images/lexmundi/PDF/guide_israel.pdf</ref>

|-
| Italy
| 0
| Italy has no prohibition on predatory pricing. However, "it is foreseeable that the same principles set forth in EC law to prohibit predatory price cutting by a dominant undertaking may be applied."<ref>Competition Law in the EU, Vol. 1, 384.</ref>

|-
| Jamaica
| 0
|

|-
| Japan
| 0
| Japan prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Jersey, Channel Islands
| 0
| Jersey prohibits predatory pricing, but does not require recoupment as an element of the violation. <ref>Table 4, Report on Predatory Pricing, Unilateral Conduct Working Group, April 2008, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/FINALPredatoryPricingPDF.pdf.</ref>

|-
| Jordan
| 0
| Prohibited by Articles 6.A and 6.C of the Competition Law of 2004.<ref>World Bank Competition Law Database: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTICE/EXTCOMPLEGALDB/0,,contentMDK:21001779~menuPK:2137510~pagePK:2137398~piPK:64581526~theSitePK:2137348,00.html</ref>

|-
| Kazakhstan
| 1
| Article 10(1)of the 2006 Law of the Republic of Kazahkstan on Competition and Restriction of Monopolistic Activities<ref>Statute provided from the World Bank at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCOMPLEGALDB/Resources/CompetitivenesandMonopolyRestrictionLaw20060707_eng.pdf</ref> prohibits excessively low price setting.

|-
| Kenya
| 1
| Article 10(3)(a) of The Restrictive Trade Practices, Monopolies and Price Control Act of 1990 prohibits selling below average variable cost.

|-
| Kyrgystan
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Lao PDR
| 0
|

|-
| Latvia
| 0
| Latvia has no explicit prohibition on predatory pricing. However, "[p]redatory pricing by definition as a practice aimed at hindrance, restriction or distortion of competition would qualify as an abuse of dominant position.<ref>Dace Silava-Tomsone, Getting the Deal Through – Dominance 2006, http://www.lt-v.lv/pdf/Latvia_dace.pdf</ref>

|-
| Lithuania
| 1
| Lithuania's competition authority includes predatory pricing in its definition of an abuse of a dominant position. This definition is found in a May 17 2000 intra-agency bylaw,<ref>http://www.konkuren.lt/english/antitrust/legislation_resoliution_52.htm</ref> a supplement to their more general competition legislation.<ref>http://www.konkuren.lt/english/antitrust/legislation.htm</ref>

|-
| Luxembourg
| 1
| Below cost selling of goods and services is prohibited under the Act on Commercial Practices, Unfair Competition and Comparative Advertising (July 2002).<ref>http://www.entemp.ie/publications/commerce/2005/groceriesorder/chapter9.pdf</ref>

|-
| Malawi
| 1
| Article 32(2)(a) of the Malawi Competition and Fair Trading Bill of 1998 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Mali
| 1
| Article 17 of Ordonnance N°92-021/P-CTSP Instituant la Liberte des Prix et de la Concurrence, dated April 13, 1992 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Malta
| 1
| Article 9(2)(b) of Chapter 379 Competition Act of February 1 1995 forbids "charg[ing] prices which are below the average variable cost price of a product in order to drive rival competitors out of the market[.]"

|-
| Mauritius
| 1
| Article 11(2)(a) of The Competition Bill N° VI of 2003 prohibits below-cost selling by a dominant firm.

|-
| Macedonia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Mexico
| 1
| Article 7 of the Regulations of the Federal Law on Economic Competition of March 4, 1998 prohibits price setting below market price.

|-
| Moldova
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Mongolia
| 1
| Article 4(3) of the Law of Mongolia on Prohibiting Unfair Competition prohibits a firm from selling own goods at a price lower than the cost.

|-
| Morocco
| 1
| Article 7 of Dahir no. 1-00-225 of 2 rabil I 1421 promulgating law no. 06-99, concerning freedom of prices and competition, prohibits pricing offers or abusive practices in pricing sales to consumers that are low compared to production costs, distribution costs, and promotion costs, when these offers or practices are meant to or may have the effect of eliminating a market.

|-
| Namibia
| 0
|

|-
| Netherlands
| 0
| Dutch law does not forbid resale at a loss, either. <ref>Competition Law in the EU, Vol. 1, 445.</ref>

|-
| New Zealand
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that New Zealand's general test for predatory pricing is similar to the US, in that they ask, "is there below-cost price cutting with a view to recouping losses without loss of market share by raising prices without fear of reprisals afterwards?"<ref>http://www.luc.edu/law/academics/special/center/antitrust/pdfs/berry_nz_summary.pdf</ref>

|-
| Nicaragua
| 1
| Article 19(h) prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.dgpsa.gob.ni/biblioteca/biblioteca_archivos/449/Ley%20601.%20Ley%20%20de%20promocion%20de%20la%20competencia..pdf</ref>

|-
| Nigeria
| 0
|

|-
| Norway
| 1
| Though unclear which specific provision it uses, the Norwegin Competition Authority has recently held numerous proceedings for predatory pricing violations.<ref>http://sec.edgar-online.com/2005/04/15/0001156973-05-000475/Section4.asp; http://competition.practicallaw.com/7-201-3648; http://ld.practicallaw.com/4-208-8975</ref>.

|-
| Pakistan
| 0
|

|-
| Panama
| 1
| "Any predatory action taken unilaterally . . . when said action cannot reasonably be expected to generate or increase earnings, but rather to encourage the competitor or potential competitor to stop competing . . . leaving the agent with substantial power or in a monopolistic position . . ."<ref>FTAA - Negotiating Group on Competition Policy Inventory of Domestic Laws and Regulations relating to Competition Policy in the Western Hemisphere, March 22 2002, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp</ref>

|-
| Papua and New Guinea
| 0
|

|-
| Paraguay
| 0
|

|-
| Philippines
| 0
|

|-
| Peru
| 1
| The Competition Policy Commission initiated proceedings for predatory pricing in ''Tabacalera Nacional S.A. against British American Tabacco (South America) Limited – Perú''.<ref>OECD Global Forum on Competition CONTRIBUTION FROM PERU, October 4 2001, http://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=Predatory_Pricing_Report&action=edit</ref>

|-
| Poland
| 1
| Article 15.1(1) of the The Act on Combating Unfair Competition of April 16 1993 prohibits "the sale of goods or services below their purchase cost in order to eliminate other entrepreneurs."<ref>http://www.uokik.gov.pl/download/Z2Z4L3Vva2lrL2VuL2RlZmF1bHRfb3Bpc3kudjAvNTIvMS8xLzIwMDdfMDFfMTZfdXpua19fZW5nbGlzaF92ZXJzaW9uLnBkZg</ref> Article 8(2)(1) of The Act on Protection of Competition and Consumers of December 15 2000 prohibits "direct or indirect imposition of unfair prices, including predatory prices or prices glaringly low."<ref>http://www.konsument.gov.pl/files/ccp_act.pdf</ref>

|-
| Portugal
| 1
| Decree-Law 370/93 of October 29, 1993 (as amended by Decree-Law 140/98 on May 16 1998) forbids selling goods at a price below the actual price of purchase (plus taxes and transportation costs).<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. I-326)</ref>

|-
| Romania
| 1
| Article 6(f) of The Parliament of Romania Competition Law of 1996 explicitly prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| Russia
| 1
| Article 7 of Law no. 135 on the Protection of Competition prohibits a dominant firm from setting a price that is lower than the sum of expenses necessary for production and sale of the commodity.

|-
| Saudi Arabia
| 1
| Article 5(1) of the Competition Law of 2004 prohibits "selling a commodity or service at a price below cost, with the intention of forcing competitors out of the market."

|-
| Senegal
| 0
|

|-
| Serbia-Montenegro
| 0
|

|-
| Singapore
| 1
| Singapore authorities have clarified that Article 47(2)(a) of No. 46 Competition Act of 2004 includes prohibition ofpredatory pricing.<ref>http://app.mti.gov.sg/default.asp?id=148&articleID=107; http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN025141.pdf</ref>

|-
| Slovak Republic
| 1
| The Slovak Republic forbids abusive acts by a dominant firm seeking to exclude competition.<ref>136/2001 Coll. ACT of 27 February 2001 on Protection of Competition and on Amendments and Supplements to Act of the Slovak National Council No. 347/1990 Coll. (Article 8(2)(e))</ref> The Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic (their enforcement agency) has used this provision to prosecute temporary predatory pricing of fuels as early as September 26 2001,<ref>Decision No. 2001/DZ/P/2/283 issued by Chairman of the Office on September 26, 2001 (http://www.antimon.gov.sk/eng/article.aspx?c=395&a=2139</ref> but the decision was never given effect, as the defendant discontinued its pricing scheme.

|-
| Slovenia
| 0
| No predatory pricing provision found. Office for Protection of Competition received one complaint of predatory pricing against Produkcija Plus d.o.o. - RTV Slovenia d.o.o. on 2/20/01. However, the complaint was dismissed (Office did not rule on the merits).<ref>http://www.uvk.gov.si/fileadmin/uvk.gov.si/pageuploads/Enforcement_Record_2001.pdf</ref>

|-
| South Africa
| 1
| Section 8(d)(iv) of the South African Competition Act 89 of 1998 prohibits predatory pricing.

|-
| South Korea
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that predatory pricing is prohibited.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=9aSrAg57v-oC&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq=korea+predatory+pricing&source=web&ots=Ha4I_DL5gr&sig=uPTcGF0DqgytzhKgN4wMY9_J0KcDeregulation Deregulation and Interdependence in the Asia-Pacific Region by Anne O. Krueger, Takatoshi Itō]</ref>

|-
| Spain
| 1
| There are two cases where the courts have issued fines for predatory pricing:

1. General Electric Espana[20], December 30 1991, - GE's local affiliate was fined Pta 15 million (~90,000 euros)<ref>TDC Dec. 295/91, or December 30, 1991</ref>

2. Arbora/Ausonia, January 7 1992<ref>TDC Dec. 291/90, January 7, 1992</ref>

Predatory pricing, presumably, is covered by common law because there is no mention of it in the Spanish competition laws.

Note: More recently, Telefónica, a Spanish firm, was fined by £102.6m (€152m) by the EU competition agency.<ref>http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/government-law/legislation/news/index.cfm?newsid=3865</ref>

|-
| Sri Lanka
| 1
| Anti-competitive practices prohibited by the Fair Trading Commission Act No. 1 of 1987 includes predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/articles/sri_lankan/HTML/CV39.html</ref>In Ceylon Oxygen Co. Ltd. V. Fair Trading Commission And Another, the Commission considered a predatory pricing complaint.<ref>http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/case_law/slr/HTML/1997SLR2V372.htm</ref>

|-
| Sweden
| 0
| No predatory pricing provision found.

|-
| Switzerland
| 1
| Article 7(2) of the Federal Act on Cartels and Other Restraints of Competition of October 6, 1995 prohibits "the under-cutting of prices or other conditions directed against a specific competitor."

|-
| Taiwan
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that competition law in Taiwan stipulates that enterprises in dominant market positions should not improperly fix, maintain or change the price of the goods and services, and that ''predatory pricing definitely belongs to improperly fixing price''.<ref>http://www.jurist.org.cn/doc/uclaw200512/uclaw20051206.pdf</ref>

|-
| Tajikistan
| 1
| Article 4 prohibits a dominant firm from setting low prices.

|-
| Tanzania
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Thailand
| 1
| Secondary source indicates that predatory pricing is an unfair practice under Thai Guidelines.<ref>http://www.jftc.go.jp/eacpf/05/APECTrainingProgramDecember2004/Kalampakorn_Thai.pdf</ref>

|-
| Tunisia
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Turkey
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| Ukraine
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found.

|-
| United Kingdom
| 1
| Chapter II of the Fair Trading Act of 1973 prohibits predatory pricing. The OFT has published the following guidelines to assess whether pricing schemes are predatory:<ref>Competition Law in the EU (p. II-63)</ref>

{| class="wikitable"

|-
| Price below average variable cost
| Predation can be assumed

|-
| Price below average variable cost but below average total cost
| Evidence on costs may indicate predation but evidence required of intention to eliminate a competitor before predation could be found

|-
| Price above average total costs
| Evidence on costs does not indicate predation

|}

The Competition Act of 1980 is also at the disposal of the Director General of the Office of Free Trade (OFT) for the prohibition of predatory pricing.

|-
| United States
| 0
| Though predatory pricing is formally prohibited, the law in the United States is riddled with exceptions that effectively eliminate the predatory pricing prohibition. The "recoupment test" is a notable example.<ref>See ''Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.'', 509 U.S. 209 (1993)</ref>

|-
| Uruguay
| 1
| Article 3(2)(c) of the Law of the Defense of the Competition prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>See Law of the Defense of the Competition, http://www.sice.oas.org/compol/natleg/Uruguay/dec1503.asp#DECRETO</ref>

|-
| Uzbekistan
| 1
| Article 5 prohibits a firm from setting a monopolistic low price, which is defined as the price of a good consciously set by the undertaking, with dominant position in the market as a seller, at a level bringing the losses from sale of a given good, result of which is or may be the restriction of competition by means of driving the competitors out of the market.

|-
| Venezuela
| 0
| No prohibition on predatory pricing found. Moreover, a secondary source suggests that no such prohibition exists.<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=2tsyQFzaj0UC&pg=RA1-PA349&lpg=RA1-PA349&dq=venezuela+predatory+pricing&source=web&ots=lrCQHugr38&sig=gol1a-LNF_pcCwR3vuIkFTIj1Rw</ref>

|-
| Vietnam
| 1
| Secondary source indicates Vietnam prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.freshfields.com/practice/comptrade/publications/pdf/10388.pdf</ref>

|-
| Zambia
| 1
| Article 7(2)(a) of The Competition and Fair Trading Act (1994) prohibits "predatory behaviour towards competition including the use of cost pricing to eliminate competitors."<ref>The Competition and Fair Trading Act (1994), http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/africa/Zambia/COMPETITION%20anDFAIR%20TRADING%20ACT.PDF</ref>

|-
| Zimbabwe
| 1
| Amendment 14 of 2001 to the The Competition Act of 1996 prohibits "[s]elling at very low prices or at below production costs as a deliberate strategy of driving competitors off the market."

|}

== References ==

<references />

South Korea (December 31, 2004)

2009-01-24T14:02:29Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 25'''

''Governed by:'' Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act of 1980, with amendments
<ref>Korea Free Trade Commission website, http://ftc.go.kr/data/hwp/(1)mrfta.doc</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Article 2-2 extends scope overseas

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Article 22 imposes fines for violations of Article 19.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 1
| Article 66(1) allows the Commission to impose imprisonment for violations of Article 3-2.

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Article 21 states that the Fair Trade Commission may order an enterpriser to discontinue an act, publicly announce the fact of receiving corrective order, or take other corrective measures.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Article 49(2) says that any person who deems that a violation of the Act has occurred may report it.

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 1
| Article 56 says that an enterprise that violates the Act can be liable for damages to those who were injured by the violation.

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Article 12(1) requires notification of mergers.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 0
|

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 1
| Article 12(6) says that notification must occur within 30 days of the merger.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| Article 7(4)(1)(a) considers dominance

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Article 7 bans mergers that have negative effects on competition.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 1
| Article 7(2) exempts mergers that promote efficiency enough to make up for the negative effects on competition.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Article 3-2(2) prohibits unreasonably controlling the buying and selling of goods on the market.

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 3-2 prohibits the abuse of a dominant position.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Article 3-2(1) prohibits price setting.

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Article 23(1)(1) prohibits discriminatory transactions

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 1
| Article 29 prohibits RPM.

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 1
| Article 3-2(4) prohibits acts unreasonably impeding the participation of new competitors.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 19(1)(1) prohibits price fixing.

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Article 3-2(2), 3-2(5) prohibit tying.

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Article 19(1)(4) prohibits market division.

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 19(1)(3) prohibits output restraint.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| Article 19(1)(8) prohibits market sharing

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| Article 23(1)(2) prohibits acts designed to unfairly exclude competitors.

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| Article 19(1)(8) prohibits collusive tendering

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 1
| Article 23(1)(1) prohibits agreements meant to refuse transactions with a certain enterprise.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 19(2) allows certain unfair practices for purposes of economic development and industrial rationalization.

|}

== References ==
<references />

Sri Lanka (1987)

2009-01-24T14:02:04Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 8'''

''Governed by:'' Fair Trading Commission Act, No. 1 of 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “Fair Trade Act”)<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/asia/Sri%20Lanka/Sri%20Lanka-Act.pdf,</ref> as amended by Act No. 57 of 1993<ref>http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/asia/Sri%20Lanka/Sri%20Lanka-Amendment.pdf</ref>.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Article 37 imposes fines and imprisonment for violations of the FTA.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 1
| Article 37 imposes fines and imprisonment for violations of the FTA.

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Article 15(1)(c) allows the Commission to divide up any business that has an illegal monopoly or anticompetitive merger.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Article 11 says that the Commission can start an investigation after a complaint from any person.

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 0
|

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 1
| Article 10(2) says that the Commission may give all persons interested in the inquiry the right to be heard.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 0
|

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 0
|

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| Article 13(1) says that the Commission can regulate mergers that are likely to create a dominant position.

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 1
| Article 15(1)(a) allows an efficiency defense for mergers.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 0
|

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 0
|

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 0
|

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 0
|

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 1
| Article 12(7) says that the Commission is to look at whether a monopoly creates obstacles to entry when deciding whether it is illegal.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 15(1)(a) allows an efficiency defense for possibly illegal monopolies.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 0
|

|-
|
| Tying
| 0
|

|-
|
| Market Division
| 0
|

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 0
|

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 0
|

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| Article 14 defines anti-competitive agreement as one “restricting, distorting or preventing competition”

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 0
|

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Article 15(1)(a) allows an efficiency defense for possibly illegal anti-competitive practices

|}

== References ==
<references />

Tajikistan (November 29, 2000)

2009-01-24T13:59:16Z

Kajrozga:

'''Score = 20'''

''Governed by:'' Law of the Tajik Republic on Competition and Restriction of Monopolistic Activities on Goods Markets, November 29, 2000.
<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/asia/Tajikistan/leg1.pdf (own translation)</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Art. 2 extends scope to actions outside Tajik borders

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Art. 16 provides for fines

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Art. 5, 13 allow dissolution through judicial process

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 0
|

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 0
|

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Art. 11 requires submission to antimonopoly auth.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
| Art. 11 requires prior consent

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| Art. 11 considers restriction of competition

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| Art. 4 prohibits removing goods from circulation

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Art. 4 prohibits dominant acts that infringe on interests of other economic agents generally

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Art. 4 prohibits price setting

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Art. 4 prohibits discriminatory pricing

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 1
| Art. 4 prohibits creating obstacles to entry

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Art. 5 prohibits price fixing

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Art. 4 prohibits tying

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Art. 5 prohibits market division

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 0
|

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| Art. 5 prohibits market division based on buyers

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| Art. 5 prohibits limiting competition

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| Art. 5 prohibits collusive tendering, bid rigging

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 1
| Art. 5 prohibits supply refusal

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|}

== References ==
<references />

El Salvador

2009-01-23T02:59:42Z

Kajrozga:

*[[El Salvador (2007)]]<ref>El Salvador implemented some amendments to its Competition law in 2007, details are forthcoming. For more information, go to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/49/41597078.pdf</ref>
*[[El Salvador (January 1, 2006)]]
*[[El Salvador (April 30, 1997)]]

El Salvador (January 1, 2006)

2009-01-23T02:54:58Z

Kajrozga: New page: '''Score = 18''' ''Governed by:'' Competition Law of December 2004, took effect 1 January 2006<ref>http://www.minec.gob.sv/leyes/LeydeCompetencia_english_.pdf</ref> {| class="wikitable" ...

'''Score = 18'''

''Governed by:'' Competition Law of December 2004, took effect 1 January 2006<ref>http://www.minec.gob.sv/leyes/LeydeCompetencia_english_.pdf</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| Article 2.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Article 38 provides for fines if prohibitions in the statute are violated.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Articles 40-42 say that a 3rd party can compel the enforcement agency to begin an investigation.

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 0
|

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Article 33 says firms of a certain size must request authorization.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
| Article 33

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| Article 33 considers the size of the resulting firm.

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 1
| Article 34 talks about consumer benefits as well as market efficiency.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 1
| Article 34

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 0
|

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| Article 30 leaves other possible abusive acts open.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 0
|

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| Article 30(d)

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 1
| Article 30(a)

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Article 25(a)

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Article 26(a) & (b)

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Article 25(d) prohibits "Division of the market, either by territory, volume of sales or purchases, by type of good sold, customer or seller , or by any other means."

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Article 25(b) prohibits "Fixing or limiting quantity output."

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 0
|

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 0
|

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| Article 25(c)

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 0
|

|}

== References ==
<references />