Zaznacz stronę

Fifth, insurance companies benefit from limited antitrust exemptions, as provided for in the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. [45] A company spin-off may be ordered if the combined market share exceeds the prescribed limits, as is the case with Standard Oil and AT&T and is considered in the case of Microsoft. However, Indian laws have not adopted this approach; The division of undertakings may be ordered only if it is established that a significant market share of the merged entity is contrary to the public interest. However, in a developing country, it is necessary to set up monolithic organizations at a level where they are able to confront global players according to their size and economies of scale. Therefore, the absence of enforcement policies is a blessing in secret, as they do not impose restrictions on the accumulation of capital and wealth. The new regulation should not be too strict as regards the pre-merger requirements, but should allow for merger without restrictions. The only question that remains to be answered is whether the concentration would result in an increased burden on the consumer. No introduction to antitrust law would be complete without addressing mergers and acquisitions. We can divide them into horizontal, vertical and potentially competitive mergers. Indian competition law has set thresholds for mergers and acquisitions for antitrust enforcement, while U.S.

antitrust laws focus primarily on the actual impact of mergers and acquisitions. It is important to note that the limitations under India`s competition law have made antitrust laws more rigid and particularly protective, which can hamper India`s share of cross-border mergers and acquisitions. Since cross-border mergers and acquisitions are the latest trend in the international economic forum, Indian antitrust law needs to be freed up in order to comply with international antitrust laws. In October 2020, the DOJ (Federal Ministry of Justice) filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google, a very large search engine company. The lawsuit claimed that Google has amassed a monopoly over its two decades that is unfair to competition and consumers. Supporters of the antitrust lawsuit say Google has hurt consumers by restricting people`s freedom to choose a search engine whenever they want. Due to the nature of the Internet, there will always be options for consumers to choose from. This defense is likely to result in the antitrust lawsuit not taking immediate action against Google.

While a major lawsuit against Google is unlikely, we don`t yet know what will come out of it. The federal government can file civil lawsuits to enforce laws through the antitrust division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. Only the U.S. Department of Justice can initiate antitrust criminal proceedings under federal antitrust laws. [47] Perhaps the federal government`s most notorious antitrust enforcement actions were the crushing of AT&T`s monopoly of local telephone services in the early 1980s[48] and its actions against Microsoft in the late 1990s. The Clayton Anti-Trust Act of 1914 passed the CLAYTON ACT (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 12 et seq.) in response to the decision of the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey. it feared that this would undermine the prohibition of trade restrictions and the monopolization of the Sherman Act.

The provisions of the Clayton Act included section 7, which prohibited the purchase of anti-competitive shares. In the Indian context, it is important to link the existing provisions on the application of mergers with those of the US and EU guidelines. In the United States, under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, horizontal mergers, that is, mergers of companies in the same market, are treated the hardest, as they are the most likely to have anti-competitive effects. Vertical mergers, such as those between suppliers and customers, are treated much less strictly. Merger law is generally forward-looking: it prohibits mergers that may have adverse effects. The pre-notification requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act allow antitrust authorities to assess the likely impact of proposed mergers before they take place. This notice avoids the difficult and potentially ineffective „egg decryption” once an anti-competitive merger is completed. Agencies are also investigating some completed mergers that later appear to have harmed clients. The most comprehensive and authoritative description of how antitrust authorities apply and analyze the Section 7 test can be found in the FTC and DOJ Horizontal Merger Guidelines. The 2010 edition is available from

On the other hand, Efficiency argues that antitrust law should be amended to primarily benefit consumers and not pursue other objectives. .