RPM is one of the hottest areas of competition law in the world. A recent Chinese landmark case—Johnson & Johnson—was not only the first significant case won by a private litigant in China, but it marked the first time a Chinese Court has publicly expanded on an appropriate RPM approach. Our guest Editor, Adrian Emch, author of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law – The First Five Years, has assembled an authoritative collection of papers explaining the significance and portends for the future, beginning with a piece authored by the Judge in this case.
Using this collection as inspiration, we’re dedicating two CPI issues to take a global look at the status of RPM. Completing this issue, we move to SE Asia, and then to Australia and South Africa—two contrarian countries that defend looking at RPM as on a per se basis, and Brazil, which is struggling with per se vs. rule of reason. Next issue, we’ll check in on the U.S., Canada, and Europe.
RPM – A Landmark Decision in China
It may be possible to simplify the principles used in evaluating the effects of RPM agreements: if such agreements do not have the negative effect of restricting price competition, then they can generally be considered not to constitute a monopoly agreement. DING Wenlian (Shanghai High People’s Court)