Effects of the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines on Merger Review: Based on Ten Years of Practical Experience

Dennis W. Carlton,Mark A. Israel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-020-09798-4

2020-11-10

Review of Industrial Organization

Abstract:We assess how the 2010 Merger Guidelines have been applied by agencies and courts. We conclude that:

economics,management

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The 2023 Merger Guidelines and The Role of Economics

Michael A. Salinger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-024-09957-x

2024-05-09

Review of Industrial Organization

Abstract:Relying heavily on legal analysis, the 2023 Merger Guidelines argue for a fundamental shift in antitrust enforcement that places more emphasis on protecting competitors and less on protecting the beneficiaries of competition. It is up to courts, not economists, to ascertain whether this interpretation of antitrust law is correct. But economists can and should analyze the likely economic effects. Evidence that antitrust enforcement has permitted some markets to be overly concentrated justifies the tightening of horizontal merger enforcement that is signaled by these guidelines. Evaluating the elimination of double marginalization from vertical mergers as a part of an efficiency defense rather than as a primary economic effect reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of vertical mergers. At a minimum, these guidelines will further damage the reputation of the DOJ and FTC among competition policy enforcers in other countries. A potentially more serious cost will be if foreign competition authorities use these guidelines to justify enforcing their own laws to protect inefficient domestic firms against foreign competition.

economics,management
Evolution of the Merger Guidelines: Is This Fox Too Clever by Half?

Carl Shapiro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-024-09956-y

2024-04-07

Review of Industrial Organization

Abstract:The 2023 Merger Guidelines make some notable improvements over the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines. They give greater emphasis to the idea that predicting the competitive effects of a proposed merger is inherently difficult and that to block a merger the government need only show a risk that the merger may substantially lessen competition – not that it will do so. They also give greater emphasis to dynamic competition and innovation – especially with regard to acquisitions of potential entrants – and they add useful material on multi-sided platforms. However, the treatment of market definition in the 2023 Merger Guidelines may weaken horizontal merger enforcement by demoting the role of the "hypothetical monopolist test," which is used to define markets for the purpose of measuring market shares, and by removing extensive material from prior guidelines that explained why market shares measured in narrower markets tend to be more informative than market shares measured in broader markets. The 2023 Merger Guidelines lower the market concentration thresholds that trigger a presumption by the antitrust enforcement agencies that a merger may substantially lessen competition, but the enforcement data suggest that change will have little effect in practice. The 2023 Merger Guidelines also may lead to less effective deterrence of harmful mergers because they are not well targeted at the mergers that are most likely to substantially lessen competition. One cannot prioritize everything.

economics,management
The 2023 Merger Guidelines: A Post-Chicago and Neo-Brandeisian Integration

Steven C. Salop

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-024-09959-9

2024-04-10

Review of Industrial Organization

Abstract:This article is designed to explicate the somewhat misunderstood analysis in the 2023 Merger Guidelines (MGs) and situate the MGs in the context of the legal as well as economic environment in which they operate. The MGs refine economic analyses in previous MGs, renew emphasis on certain competitive concerns and approaches, and add several emerging new competitive issues. They also integrate certain goals of post-Chicago and Neo-Brandeisian approaches to merger analysis. The MGs integrate the economic analysis into the traditional legal structure of the "prima facie" and "rebuttal" evidentiary stages and place greater weight on avoiding false negatives over false positives in various places, which is a principal element in both post-Chicago and Neo-Brandeisian approaches. An important theme that runs through the 2023 MGs is that competitive effects analysis should not be limited to static competitive effects analysis of the immediate unilateral or coordinated price effects of a merger. They stress that the analysis should also account for the dynamic effects that result from the change in market structure that follows from the merger as well as the changes in the incentives of the firms. As in the seminal Spence-Dixit models, the entrant would rationally anticipate that the lower marginal costs of the merged firm could produce more intense post-entry price competition and a higher likelihood that the entry would be unprofitable. Thus, higher barriers to entry or expansion may result, which means that the merged firm's rebuttal burden of production under the sliding scale should be increased accordingly under the decision theory risk analysis that places greater weight on avoiding false negatives.

economics,management
Illumina-GRAIL in Retrospect

Roger D. Blair,Christine Piette Durrance

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-024-09960-2

2024-05-09

Review of Industrial Organization

Abstract:In 2023, the Antitrust Agencies released updated Merger Guidelines. These Guidelines outline policies and procedures in enforcing § 7 of the Clayton Act as it relates to horizontal, vertical, and complementary mergers. In this paper, we consider the application of these guidelines to a recently challenged vertical merger: the Illumina-GRAIL merger. The FTC found the merger to be anticompetitive; and on appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely agreed. While we show that the positions taken by the FTC are consistent with the Guidelines, we provide an economic analysis that reveals that these positions and the subsequent judicial decision are inconsistent with economic theory, fail to protect competition, and fail to promote consumer welfare. Consequently, the Merger Guidelines may deter procompetitive mergers and lead the Agencies astray in their enforcement efforts.

economics,management
Getting Merger Guidelines Right

Keith N. Hylton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-024-09967-9

2024-05-21

Review of Industrial Organization

Abstract:This paper is on the new (2023) Merger Guidelines. It makes several arguments: First, that the Guidelines should be understood as existing in a political equilibrium. Second, that the new structural presumption of the Merger Guidelines– HHI = 1,800—is too strict, and that an economically reasonable revision in the structural presumption would have increased rather than decreased the threshold. Whereas the new Guidelines lowers the threshold to HHI 1,800 from HHI 2,500, an economically reasonable revision would have increased the threshold to HHI 3,200. I justify this argument using a bare-bones model of Cournot competition. Third, it seems unlikely, as an empirical matter, that merger enforcement under the existing Guidelines is socially desirable. Fourth, that federal merger enforcement raises serious constitutional issues–which were originally discussed in 1904—and that it may be time now, in view of the new Guidelines, to return to these foundational constitutional questions.

economics,management
Potential Competition and the 2023 Merger Guidelines

Richard J. Gilbert,A. Douglas Melamed

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-024-09964-y

2024-06-26

Review of Industrial Organization

Abstract:The 2023 Merger Guidelines devote a section to mergers that eliminate potential competition. This is an important contribution because agency guidelines have not discussed the subject in detail for almost 50 years. The new Guidelines follow the traditional distinction that has been upheld in the courts between a merger's effects on incumbent responses to perceived potential competition and the potential effects of actual entry. Antitrust enforcement should assess both possible aspects of potential competition in an integrated fashion because harm from a merger occurs not infrequently from the elimination of actual potential competition; and when the elimination of perceived potential competition has an effect, it often occurs along with and as a consequence of the elimination of actual potential competition. Economic studies suggest that the benefits of perceived potential competition are less than some courts have assumed and that the benefits of actual potential competition are greater. Rather than focusing solely on the probability of harm from the elimination of a potential entrant, antitrust enforcement should adopt a sliding scale that takes into account the magnitude of the benefits for consumers or suppliers if entry is successful. Mergers with potential and nascent competitors can be harmful even if the probability of actual entry absent the merger is small.

economics,management
The 2023 Merger Guidelines and Market Definition: Doubling Down or Folding?

Louis Kaplow

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-024-09958-w

2024-06-19

Review of Industrial Organization

Abstract:Disputes about market definition are often regarded to be dispositive of litigated merger cases. Yet the market definition process is illogical—circular at best but actually far worse because it distorts or discards much of the available information on a proposed merger's effects. Against this background, the 2023 Merger Guidelines present a paradox. On one hand, they double down on market definition through what may be their most important change: tightening and augmenting the so-called structural presumption, under which high market shares are sufficient to presumptively block a merger. The importance of market definition is thereby elevated because one cannot know what market shares to use unless a market is defined. On the other hand, the 2023 Merger Guidelines' longest segment—on market definition and market shares—demotes the familiar methods (including the hypothetical monopolist test) and expresses a clear preference for the use of direct evidence on a proposed merger's effects. But direct evidence, as is well known, is a substitute for market definition, not a way to define a market in which market shares can then be calculated. This change thus disables the structural presumption. The analysis here identifies and deepens the resulting conundrum by elaborating the disconnect between the proper economic analysis of mergers and the market definition paradigm.

economics,management
A Counterfactual Analysis of Amazon's Acquisitions Under the 2023 Merger Guidelines

Edward A. Snyder,Ian Simmons,Sergei Zaslavsky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-024-09965-x

2024-07-25

Review of Industrial Organization

Abstract:The fact that Amazon was allowed to acquire hundreds of companies as it rose to become the fourth most valuable U.S. company in terms of market capitalization and a leader in three lines of business has been viewed by some as damning evidence of underenforcement by the United States antitrust authorities. In this article we ask the obvious question: If the 2023 Guidelines had been in place instead of prior guidelines, what effects would they have had on Amazon's development? To provide an answer, we identify relevant changes in the guidelines and then select for review a subset of Amazon's 280 acquisitions over the period 1998 to 2022. In our counterfactual, we analyze five horizontal acquisitions, four vertical acquisitions, and two sets of serial acquisitions . We find that the 2023 Guidelines would have broadened the bases for potential challenges and thereby would have increased the likelihood that Amazon would have faced greater resistance from antitrust authorities. The lack of safe harbors, the plasticity of individual Guidelines, and the optionality to challenge mergers under alternative theories would have exposed most of Amazon's acquisitions to challenge. The lack of meaningful guidance about which individual transactions would have been challenged suggests that going forward enforcer discretion will play a yet larger role. Regarding Amazon's serial acquisitions of nearly one hundred technology firms, we find that the 2023 Guidelines would have provided multiple rationales for intervention. Therein lies a weakness in the Guidelines and in antitrust policy: the lack of a framework for assessing both the anticompetitive and procompetitive effects of such acquisitions in high-tech industries.

economics,management
Economics at the FTC: Non-Horizontal Mergers, the CARS Rule, and the Non-Compete Rule

Alison Hole,Michael LeGower,Michael Lipsitz,Aviv Nevo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-024-10000-2

2024-11-21

Review of Industrial Organization

Abstract:The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces federal competition and consumer protection laws that prevent anticompetitive, deceptive, and unfair business practices, and works to advance government policies that protect consumers and promote competition. The FTC's Bureau of Economics performs economic analysis to support the enforcement, rulemaking and policy activities of the Commission. This article discusses several examples of these activities. We first discuss analysis of non-horizontal effects of mergers, as reflected in the 2023 Merger Guidelines and in recent cases. Next, we discuss the economic analysis conducted by the FTC's economists in two recent rules. We discuss the CARS rule, a rule that aims to increase price transparency and curb misrepresentations in the marketing, sale, and leasing of motor vehicles. We next discuss the non-compete rule, which bans employers from entering into, or attempting to enter into, a non-compete clause with a worker.

economics,management
The Year in Review: Economics at the Antitrust Division 2023–2024

Athey, Susan,Gross, Alex,Marinescu, Ioana,Shanefelter, Jennifer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-024-09998-2

2024-11-05

Review of Industrial Organization

Abstract:The publication of the 2023 Merger Guidelines (MG) by the DOJ and FTC marked a significant event in the expanding influence of economics on public guidance in antitrust. The economic frameworks that are outlined in the MG are not limited to purely horizontal or vertical mergers. The MG more explicitly embrace an approach of assessing risk of harm to competition, which in turn supports the consideration of dynamic theories such as entrenchment or expansion of market power. The MG also elaborate on mergers that involve multi-product firms, platforms, and labor market competition. During this eventful year, the Division also successfully blocked JetBlue's proposed acquisition of Spirit and obtained conduct relief to protect a specific type of labor market – chicken growers – from anticompetitive conduct by processors who compete for their services.

economics,management
Product Differentiation, Foreign Vertical Merger and Market Competition:An Analysis of Product Positioning and Market Share

Shuzhong Ma,Hongsheng Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942x.2013.04.015

2013-01-01

Abstract:Since China adopted the policy of ”reform and opening up,” attracting foreign investment has long been part of China's ”bringing in” strategy. The remarkable economic achievements in China over the past 30 years have proved this to be a right choice. However, with the gradual perfection of China's market-oriented economy, problems caused by the foreign investment have been emerging. Foreign investment goes into the host country market mainly via greenfield investments and cross-border acquisitions. Since the late twentieth century, cross-border acquisitions have replaced greenfield investments as the major way for multinational companies to enter new markets. In their attempt s to occupy the Chinese market and extend the industrial chain, foreign enterprises took vertical mergers of China's upstream enterprises as one of their strategic choices. In this process, we not iced two typical facts: one is that multinational companies produce more high-end products than Chinese enterprises; and the other is that mergers do not immediately change the product positioning of acquired upstream enterprises. In other words, the short-term effects and long-term effects seem to be different. In order to better reflect these realities, we have constructed a theoretical framework based on the extended low-end to high-end distributed Hotelling model, which can be employed to explore the impact of foreign vertical mergers of the upstream enterprises on the downstream enterprises in China from the perspective of product positioning and market share.To the previous studies, this paper has made the following three contributions: First, we investigate the impact of mergers on China's downstream enterprises under both monopoly pricing and single pricing. Second, we study both the endogenous decisions made by upstream firms and the sequential decisions made by both upstream and downstream enterprises in the industrial chain. Third, we divide the impact of merger into short-term effects and long-term effects according to whether the product positioning of upstream firms can be changed or not, which may better reflect the reality of poor compatibility between the foreign high-end downstream enterprise and the acquired upstream enterprise in the short-term after the merger occurs.We find that foreign vertical merger can lead to an improvement of the product positioning of China's low-end downstream enterprises, and even an expansion of market share in the short run. The impact of foreign vertical merger in the long run is associated with the cost of the upstream enterprises: upstream enterprises' lower costs will lead to a decline in the product positioning of China's low-end downstream enterprises, and the size of reduction will be in negative correlation with the cost of the upstream enterprises. The higher cost of upstream enterprises results in the upgrading of product positioning of low-end downstream enterprises and the size of upgrading is in positive correlation with the cost of the upstream enterprises. Whatever the cost of the upstream firm is, foreign vertical merger will bring about a decline in the market share of China's low-end downstream enterprises in the long run. The conclusion is robust under quadratic transport cost. By calculating the boundary condition, we also find that foreign vertical merger only occurs in the upstream industry of higher production cost or more technology intensity, which can be explained by the stronger input price effect with the increase in the upstream production cost.Because of limited space and data availability, this paper does not discuss the issues of consumer welfare effects, nor has strong detailed empirical support. Nevertheless, the conclusions of our paper do have practical insight and significance.
Assessing Merger Impacts on Consumer Welfare in a Converging Internet Marketplace

Rob Frieden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3430721

2019-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:This article identifies substantial flaws in how U.S. government agencies and courts assess merger proposals by ventures operating in the information, communications and entertainment (“ICE”) marketplace. Using current market definitions, consumer impact assessments and economic doctrine, antitrust enforcement agencies may fail to identify the risk of harm to consumers and competition, a so-called false negative. In recent years, the Department of Justice, Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission, individually and collectively, have assessed the competitive consequences of numerous multi-billion dollar acquisitions and have conditionally approved almost all of them. These agencies appear predisposed to favor deals that involve vertical integration up and down market segments, based on an assumption that short terms consumer welfare gains would exceed any potential competitive harms. The article concludes that reviewing government agencies appear to overemphasize past and current marketplace conditions rather than assess future impacts on consumers and competition. By “fighting the last war,” these agencies fail to identify new risks to consumer welfare, particularly by ventures operating in multiple markets that do not readily fit into the conventional assessment of mutually exclusive vertical and horizontal “food chains.” In an ecosystem where both technologies and markets converge, ventures can appear to offer consumers an incredible value proposition akin to a “free lunch.” A better calibrated, multi-dimensional analysis would identify significant offsetting harms.The article suggests that the narrow fixation on near term impact on consumers and the prices they pay insufficiently assesses the potential for harm, particularly for Internet-based ventures that require no cash payment for service. Government antitrust enforcement agencies compound mistakes in market impact assessment by ignoring how firms finance “free services” through often obscured collection, analysis and sale of consumer data. In light of increasing concentration in the ICE marketplace, through mergers and the impact of converging technologies, surviving ventures can adversely impact both core and now more closely integrated, adjacent markets.The article will examine how and why the FTC approved the acquisition of DoubleClick by Google in 2007, having concluded insignificant competitive harm will occur even as Google quickly grew to dominate nearly all sectors of the ICE advertising marketplace. The article also evaluates whether in conditionally approving Comcast’s acquisition of NBC/Universal the FCC failed to safeguard consumers. Additionally, the article considers whether AT&T, as anticipated by reviewing courts, flowed through to consumers any of the anticipated efficiency gains and cost savings generated by its acquisition of Time Warner.The article concludes that recent and future ICE acquisitions have a much greater likelihood of generating legitimate concerns about competitive and consumer harms, particularly as ICE market becomes ever more concentrated and often dominated by a single firm. The article does not recommend a repudiation of Chicago School antitrust doctrine, but recommends that reviewing agencies and courts calibrate empirical measures of prospective costs and benefits of a proposed merger by identifying short term and longer-term impacts on core and adjacent markets.
Horizontal Merger and Price Competition Based on Network Effect

翁轶丛,陈宏民,倪苏云

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1006-2467.2002.04.035

2002-01-01

Abstract:Based on the Salop circular city model, the motive and social welfare of enterprise's horizontal merger were analyzed, and the influence of merger on the price competition behavior was discussed. The results show that, under the network effect circumstance, most enterprises have the motive to merge in order to attract more consumers. The merger is unfavorable to the enterprise not engaged in merger. When the network effect is strong, the enterprise not engaged in merger should be excluded from the market, and the merging enterprise should be monopolist. As to the impact of merger to social welfare, the study shows, when the network effect is strong, although the enterprise not engaged in merger is excluded from the market and the market is monopolized by the merging enterprise, the social welfare is still improved. So the government should relax the regulation of the merger in the industry with network effect.
Introduction: Observations on the 2023 Merger Guidelines

Blair, Roger D.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-024-09969-7

2024-06-07

Review of Industrial Organization

Abstract:This is the introduction to a Special Issue on the 2023 Merger Guidelines.

economics,management
Your business in court and at federal agencies: 2010 - 2011

John B Reiss,Dawn Crowder,Brian Simons,Igor Pleskov,Tiffany Davis,Patrick Nugent

Abstract:This year the government aggressively pursued Manufacturers under the enhanced provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA), as well as under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA). In addition, the government pursued actions against individual executives under the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine ("RCO Doctrine") because it does not believe sanctions against the companies provide sufficient deterrence to inappropriate behavior. Companies need to focus on implementing effective compliance programs in order to prevent the occurrence of allegedly improper activity. It should be noted that the existence of an effective program will not protect executives from liability under the RCO Doctrine if improper behavior takes place. The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) has undertaken a number of initiatives during the past year in an attempt to counter claims that its review processes for domestic products is driving the development of drugs and devices to overseas markets. The Agency also has improved its capacity to review products imported from overseas by undertaking initiatives with foreign agencies and stationing more FDA employees in foreign countries. The FDA increased the number of warning letters and other enforcement actions. The FDA added two new topics of enhanced authority during the year. One was an expansion of its regulatory authority over foods, and the second was new authority to regulate certain tobacco products. The former is being subjected to some review by the courts, and the scope of its authority over tobacco is the subject of ongoing major litigation. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are unlikely to experience significant change regarding their regulation of Manufacturers. The FTC, as it has for many years, continues to try to prevent "reverse" payments to generic drug manufacturers by Innovator Manufacturers to diminish generic drug competition, and proposed legislation is before Congress. The SEC still appears focused on the Foreign Corporate Practices Act with respect to enforcement against pharmaceutical and device manufacturers. Federal preemption of State law continues to be a topic of concern, with Court's taking different positions on the effect of the various Supreme Court decisions made in the last two years.
Merger Efficiency Gains: Evidence from a Large Transport Merger in France

Ariane Charpin,Joanna Piechuka

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3544717

2020-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Many industries are seeing an increase in concentration, leading to a discussion on the effectiveness of horizontal merger enforcement. The policy debate shows that one of the key arguments put forward when supporting potential mergers is the possibility of realization of merger efficiency gains, specifically in the transport industry. Yet, there exists little empirical evidence on the actual effects of realized mergers on cost efficiencies. We exploit a large and highly debated merger that took place in the French transport industry to evaluate whether a merger between two major transport groups may give rise to merger efficiency gains. We exploit the industry setting to employ a difference-in-differences methodology evaluating the effect of the merger on operating costs of merging transport groups. Our results show that the merger did not lead to any merger specific efficiency gains for the merging parties. Our study relies on the use of several control groups and is robust to a great number of robustness checks as well as to the introduction of heterogeneous treatment effects, depending on the identity of the merging party, the contract type in place, as well as the closeness of competition of local operators. Overall, our study contributes to a growing number of case studies undertaken by economists that can help determine whether horizontal merger policy is being properly enforced.
Procompetitive effects of vertical takeovers. Evidence from the European Union

Chiara Bellucci,Armando Rungi

2024-11-22

Abstract:Rising market power threatens competition and decreases consumers' welfare. To date, a few works have shown how global firm-level markups increase, but there is scant evidence about the channels of such a change. This study investigates the causal impact of takeovers on markups and related firm-level outcomes on European manufacturing in 2007- 2021. Interestingly, findings suggest that takeovers aimed at vertical integration strategies are procompetitive because they result in lower markups (0.7%) and more sales (2.9%). The effects are higher as time passes from the takeover event, and they increase with the parents' number of already integrated subsidiaries. Notably, we do not find a significant impact on markups in horizontal integration strategies after we control for cherry-picking by acquirers. Eventually, we emphasize that our results on vertical takeovers point to strategies aimed at eliminating double profit margins on the input markets; thus, lower markups increase sales, spreading fixed costs and benefiting from economies of scale. Several checks on methods and sample composition effects confirm our central tenets. Finally, we reconnect with the debate initiated by the U.S. Vertical Merger Guidelines (2020; 2023), where the presumption of harm after vertical deals has been softened, thus considering procompetitive effects, but the discussion of potential foreclosure risks has been expanded.

General Economics
Effect of Mergers on Corporate Performance in India

Vardhana Pawaskar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090920010103

2001-01-01

Abstract:This paper studies the impact of mergers on corporate performance. It compares the pre- and post-merger operating performance of the corporations involved in merger to identify their financial characteristics. Also, the effect on merger-induced monopoly profits is identified by looking at the persistence profile of the profits. Taking a sample of 36 cases of merger between 1992 and 1995, it is seen that there are no significant differences in the financial characteristics of the two firms involved in merger. The mergers seem to lead to financial synergies and a one-time growth. The analysis of the regression to norm shows that there is no increase in the postmerger profits. The competitive process is not impeded with merger even when no strong anti-trust laws are present.
Which Mergers Should the European Commission Review under the Digital Markets Act?

Christophe Carugati

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4366703

2023-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Large digital platforms acquired 1149 firms in various economic sectors between 1987 and July 2022. The European Commission reviewed only 21 of these mergers as most did not meet the European Union merger control turnover threshold. This suggests under-enforcement, with some problematic mergers escaping merger review and thus posing competition risks.The EU Digital Markets Act, which entered into force in November 2022, imposes obligations on firms that are considered ‘gatekeepers’ in relation to some core platform services, such as online search engines. In particular, these firms must now inform the Commission of all their intended acquisitions. This, in combination with Commission guidance on referrals by EU national competition authorities of mergers for review, should ensure more merger reviews in the digital sector.Current European Commission guidance on referring cases for merger review is flexible but impractical as it relies on theories of harm rather than clear and objective criteria. Without clarification, there could be over-enforcement in which unproblematic mergers are reviewed, human resources are allocated inefficiently and legal uncertainty persists.The Commission should issue new guidance on which digital mergers are likely to be problematic, thus triggering referral for merger review. This is likely to be the case when the target’s user base overlaps with that of the acquirer, when the target is a leader in a future critical market and when the target is active in a core platform service.
Competition after mergers near review thresholds

Michael Weichselbaumer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2024.103066

IF: 1.739

2024-05-01

International Journal of Industrial Organization

Abstract:Size thresholds determine whether a national authority reviews a merger and separate national and supranational responsibility. Firms could pursue competition-reducing mergers before they come under any regulatory oversight. Using data on German procurement auctions, I analyse competition effects near review thresholds. Four years after a merger, competition in procurement auctions decreases after mergers that are reviewed by the German national authority, relative to mergers below the threshold. However, when acquiror and target competed in procurement auctions before the merger, competition relatively increases after a German national merger review. Anti-competitive effects after nationally reviewed mergers without pre-merger activity in procurement may get unnoticed by the authority.

economics

Effects of the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines on Merger Review: Based on Ten Years of Practical Experience

The 2023 Merger Guidelines and The Role of Economics

Evolution of the Merger Guidelines: Is This Fox Too Clever by Half?

The 2023 Merger Guidelines: A Post-Chicago and Neo-Brandeisian Integration

Illumina-GRAIL in Retrospect

Getting Merger Guidelines Right

Potential Competition and the 2023 Merger Guidelines

The 2023 Merger Guidelines and Market Definition: Doubling Down or Folding?

A Counterfactual Analysis of Amazon's Acquisitions Under the 2023 Merger Guidelines

Economics at the FTC: Non-Horizontal Mergers, the CARS Rule, and the Non-Compete Rule

The Year in Review: Economics at the Antitrust Division 2023–2024

Product Differentiation, Foreign Vertical Merger and Market Competition:An Analysis of Product Positioning and Market Share

Assessing Merger Impacts on Consumer Welfare in a Converging Internet Marketplace

Horizontal Merger and Price Competition Based on Network Effect

Introduction: Observations on the 2023 Merger Guidelines

Your business in court and at federal agencies: 2010 - 2011

Merger Efficiency Gains: Evidence from a Large Transport Merger in France

Procompetitive effects of vertical takeovers. Evidence from the European Union

Effect of Mergers on Corporate Performance in India

Which Mergers Should the European Commission Review under the Digital Markets Act?

Competition after mergers near review thresholds