Unilateral Conduct

CMA fines Fender for online RPM

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority has imposed its largest ever fine for resale price maintenance, after an investigation found a guitar maker prevented online retailers from discounting its guitars.

CMA wins against online sales ban

France: Non-notifiable deals cannot be abusive

India probes Amazon and Flipkart

The government always wins: The Tipline for 23 January 2020

Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart would have turned 105 today. His definition of obscenity – “I know it when I see it” – has been passed down through the ages, but it is not to be overshadowed by his dissenting opinion in Citizen Publishing. There, he took issue with the court’s seven-to-one order finding that a joint operating agreement between two Arizona newspapers violated federal antitrust laws. Justice Stewart said the sole consistency he could find in litigation brought under section 7 of the Clayton Act is that “the government always wins.” Congress has since given newspapers antitrust exemptions for joint operating agreements. 

Ninth Circuit seems open to no-poach appeal

A federal appellate court may be sympathetic to reviving the claims of two former LG employees that accused the company of having an illegal no-poach agreement with Samsung.

Where to draw the line? Exploring the bounds of CCI’s protective net

Khaitan & Co partner Anisha Chand and senior associate Soham Banerjee explore jurisdictional boundaries and the interplay between the Competition Act, 2002 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. While some contractual disputes ostensibly can be addressed by both laws, Chand and Banerjee identify the appropriate forum depending on the nature and scope of the dispute to ensure no overstepping of the legislative mandates. In this light, they have done a deep dive into the Competition Commission of India’s order in the Esaote case to assess whether such jurisdictional trespass has occurred and whether the case can be seen as a precedent to hold dominant companies accountable under the Competition Act, 2002 for a breach of contractual terms.

Companies need more guidance on digital economy, Dutch enforcer says

The head of the Netherlands’ antitrust enforcer has called for competition authorities to give more guidance to companies in the digital economy.

Hausfeld gets a GRIP on Google lawsuits

Plaintiff’s side law firm Hausfeld has teamed up with a public affairs consultancy to set up the Google Redress & Integrity Platform (GRIP), which aims to attract potential clients seeking redress against the technology company over its allegedly anti-competitive practices.

Latest Magazine

0.0.640.467 magazine banner gcr q3 2019 roi 3 326x238
View all issues



GCR Live 9th Annual Antitrust Law Leaders Forum


GCR Live 2nd Annual Pharmaceuticals

GCR Asia - Sign up for free weekly alerts


Regional Reviews

The Antitrust Review of the Americas 2019


United States: Cartels

David Higbee, John Cove, Jessica Delbaum, Djordje Petkoski, Ryan Shores, Todd Stenerson and Mark Weiss

Shearman & Sterling LLP

Brazil: Merger Control

Tito Andrade, Maria Eugênia Novis de Oliveira and Marcos Paulo Verissimo

Machado Meyer

Mexico: Overview

Fernando Carreño and Paloma Alcantra

Von Wobeser y Sierra, SC

Peru: National Institute for the Defence of Free Competition and the Protection of Intellectual Property

Jesús Eloy Espinoza Lozada

Head of the Technical Secretariat of the Commission for the Defence of Free Competition
All Regional Reviews


State Aid 2018



Jacques Derenne and Dimitris Vallindas

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton

Economics in State Aid

Adina Claici and Elisa Pau

Copenhagen Economics
All Know-how

GCR Editorial Calendar

Details on forthcoming features and projects.

Connect with world leading experts at GCR Live