EU Uncompetitive Market Prevention Act
-
EU Uncompetitive Market Prevention Act
Authored by James Mizrachi-Roscoe
Pre-amble: Recognising the damage of uncompetitive markets where limited actors have an outsized impact on the market with an ability to raise prices , cut production or cut innovation harming the consumer we propose this act to prevent monopolies and oligopolies from formingArticle 1 Definitions
I. Uncompetitive Market:A state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by less than 4 sellers or one supplier controls more than 35% of the market.
II. Anti-competitive practise:Any trade practise designed to limit competition and disadvantage other companies
III. Price fixing:An anticompetitive agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand.
IV. Price-dumping:Selling routinely products at prices lower than the cost to provide the service or product over a sustained period of time
V. Price Gouging:the practice of increasing the prices of goods, services, or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair. Usually, this event occurs after a demand or supply shock.
VI. Bid Rigging:A fraudulent scheme in procurement auctions resulting in non-competitive bids and can be performed by corrupt officials, by firms in an orchestrated act of collusion, or between officials and firms
VII. Price Discrimination:A microeconomic pricing strategy where identical or largely similar goods or services are sold at different prices by the same provider in different market segments or markets without significant cost differences.
VIII. Razor and Blade business model:A business model in which one item is sold at a low price (or given away for free) in order to increase sales of a complementary good, such as consumable supplies. It is different from loss leader marketing and free sample marketing, which do not depend on complementary products or services
IX. Exclusionary Group Boycott:A type of secondary boycott in which two or more competitors in a relevant market refuse to conduct business with a firm unless the firm agrees to cease doing business with an actual or potential competitor of the firms conducting the boycott.X. Exclusive dealing:When a supplier entails the buyer by placing limitations on the rights of the buyer to choose what, who and where they deal
XI. Private owned entity: Any entity not owned by the workers or majority state owned
XII. State owned:Belonging to, funded by, and controlled by the government at national, regional or local levelArticle 2: Protections against Monopolies
I. Any private owned entity may not open stores , hotels or leisure venues in a market where they already have over 35% market share in a retail segment either domestically or at a European level
II. Any private owned entity may not take over a company if the companies shall have over 35% market share in the company's core markets either domestically or at a European level
III. If a private owned entity when combined in a merger or acquisition would have over a 35% market share in a non-core market they must sell off that segment of their business for the merger to progress or be only allowed to buy a newly created segment of the target acquisition business
IV. No government may grant a private owned entity an uncompetitive market in any market
V. Private owned entities may not take over another company if it would leave less than 4 major operators in the market defined as entities having at least 10% market share
VI. Cooperatives are exempted from this act
VII. Nations may set lower market share limits before any of these clauses are triggered in their own country.Article 3:Protection against monopolistic practises
I. Private owned entities shall not engage in price fixing
II. Private owned entities may not engage in price dumping
III. Private owned entities may not engage in price gouging
IV. Private owned entities must allow competitors products on their operating systems and app stores with no additional barriers
V. Private owned entities may not engage in bid rigging
VI. Private owned entities may not pay other companies to he exclusive suppliers
VII. Private owned entities may not engage in price discrimination
VIII. Private owned entities may not collude to control a market or enter into non-competition agreements
IX. Private owned entities may not enter into alliances that undermine competition in the market
X. Private owned entities may not collude to either limit or increase supply for the purpose of driving out competition.
XI. Private owned entities may not collude to set a market price for goods or agree to reduce prices from suppliers
XII. Private owned entities may not practise exclusive dealing in order to reduce competition
XIII. Private owned entities may not practise tying of products or bundling of products where it would otherwise be unnatural
XIV. Private owned entities may not practise razor and blades price selling in order to tie a consumer into their service
XV. Private owned entities may not use proprietary technology to limit supply of spare parts or consumables need to use a product or set the price for those parts or consumables
XVI. Private owned entities may not share information on pricing,strategy or supply chains with other private entities in order to collude on pricing and supply
XVII. Private owned entities may not engage in Exclusionary group boycotts
XVIII:Private Owned entities may not collude in contract procurement or auction processes by discussing prices or arranging to put bids in at specific prices or using any other strategy to ensure the success of a particular bidder on the contract or auction
XVIV. Private owned entities may not use any other uncompetitive practises EnforcementArticle 4:Enforcement
I. A new agency called the European Union Competitive Markets Authority shall be formed to enforce the act in conjunction with national authorities with a board made up of 1 member from each member state with one vote each on all complaints, this organisation may set up subcomittees to monitor individual markets or domestic markets as long as said comittees have 1 member from each member state which shall be appointed by the member state and a chief executive appointed by the Premier Commissioner.
II. Any individual or organisation may raise a complaint with the EUCMA or an equivalent national authority which must be investigated within 3 months and acted upon in courts if it is found a private owned entity has breached any clauses in this act
III. EUCMA may open investigations independently and where cause for concern is found launch action within the court systems against private entities.
IV. Private entities may be hit with penalties ranging from having to cease anti-competitive acts , have to sell off divisions causing a breach of marketshare regulations or if found intentionally to be breaching clauses in this act be hit with a fine of up to 25% of profits as determined by the EUCMA and courts. -
Debate begins NOW and will continue until 23:59 GMT on 13 May 2023.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Pinned by
Istkalen
-
Honestly most of this is no different from the authority we grant to our Federal Trade Commission, just on a national scale. I'm sure there would be varying views on the percentage of market share when defining what is noncompetitive, but in all honesty Yosai is all for protecting the consumer from predatory practises and our overall mistrust for monopolies. I mean I am sure that most of us here at least in principle are all for some form of consumer protection and preventing noncompetitive trade practises.
Izumi Miwako
Councilor for the Federal Republic of Yosai -
This looks good to me. No suggested changes.
Snoop Dogg
-
Debate will be extended to 23:59 GMT on 27 May 2023.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Article 2, Section 5 is too harsh, considering there are certain industries where it is appropriate for there to be lesser than four private entities with more than 10% share. Although we do not oppose this, we suggest loosening it to 20-25%.
Article 3, Section 4 is quite vague, considering that "competition" is subjective. Even if it were to be well-defined, Brickston is against it, because entities may block/restrict products of "competing industries" on the basis of other grounds (1), and the internal activities of a private entity are not of the business of the state (2). Reason 2 applies to Article 3, Section 6 as well; which we also oppose.
Overall, the most important change we would like is a maximum market share much higher than 35% after which the government would intervene.
We support all other aspects of the legislation.
George Schmidt,
Briekish Economic Representative in S-Authority
-
To ease some of your concerns I propose the following amendment
Article 2
V. Private owned entities may not take over another company if it would leave less than 4 sellers in a market or give the company more than 35% marketshare.I would suggest tabling an amendment for the other concerns if you broadly support the ideas of this act though one word of caution I would give is that there needs to be broad definitions to avoid pigeon holing tactics to defeat the act by bad actors that would seek to skirt around a provision that was too legally specific. We all know what bad corporations wanting to control the market and exploit the market , workers and customers will do to get around the law.
This is also why the limit is set so low, most industries where a natural monopoly is present will usually have mainly government and third sector actors present in the market and it is also crucial states can limit competition to a degree in markets such as electricity where having competition in private companies would only create ineficiencies and raise costs for consumers to fund corporate extreme profits.We must defend the market from enemies of the people exploiting the people for their own ends in order to profiteer of their basic needs.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies
-
The amendments you have made are more aligned with Briekish and EU interests; therefore I on behalf of the country propose no more arguments.
George Schmidt,
Briekish Economic Representative in S-Authority -
Debate has ended. One amendment has been proposed, as follows:
AMENDMENT I
Article 2
V. Private owned entities may not take over another company if it would leave less than 4 sellers in a market or give the company more than 35% marketshare.
Voting will begin now and continue until 23:59 GMT on 8 June 2023.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
On behalf of the Republic of Istkalen, I vote AGAINST the amendment.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR the amendment
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillour for United Duchies -
On behalf of the Mishar republic, I vote AGAINST the amendment.
Mrs. Susie Dakota -
I vote AGAINST the amendment.
Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
On behalf of the United Kingdom, I ABSTAIN.
-
With three votes against and one for, the amendment has failed.
Final voting starts NOW and will continue until 23:59 GMT on 16 June 2023.
Iras TIlkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR this act
James Mizrachi-Roscoe,Councillour for United Duchies -
Representing The State of Elthize, I vote AGAINST this act.
May Hobbes
Councillor for Elthize -
On behalf of the Republic of Istkalen, I vote FOR this act.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
On behalf of the Federal Republic of Yosai, I vote FOR this act.
Izumi Miwako
Councillor for the Federal Republic of Yosai -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this act.
Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain
The Kingdom of Spain