Business Law: Case Study on Competition Act 1998 Infringements

This case study examines two instances related to the Competition Act 1998. The first case involves Mercedes-Benz and its dealers, who were found to be in violation of the competition law through civil cartels, leading to a fine of £2.8 million. The second case analyzes the merger between JD Sports and Go Outdoors, which was initially investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) due to concerns about reduced consumer choice, but was eventually approved for £112m, potentially expanding the consumer base for the merged entity. The study references key literature on competition law and consumer rights, highlighting the importance of fair competition in the market.

BUSINESS LAW
( TASK 3 )

INTRODUCTION
Case 1
 This deals with the chapter 1 -Prohibition
of the Competition Act 1998.
 Infringement of the competition law civil
cartels.

Mercedes-Benz
 Mercedes-Benz was engaged in the distribution of
commercial vehicles.
 A formal investigation was initiated as it resulted in
the breach of the competition act in the cartels
(Graham, 2016).

Statutory Time Table
Phase 1 Date Action
1 January 2010 Case opened
28 June 2012 OFT issued statement
21 February 2013 Infringement announced
27 March 2013 Case closed

Findings
 It was found out that OFT launched a
formal investigation against Mercedes
Benz and its 5 dealers in the north region.
 They were engaged in the infringement of
the competitin law.

Final Decision
 Competition and Markets Authority
announced that Mercedes Benz and the
five dealers agreed to pay the fine of £2.8
Million.

INTRODUCTION
Case 2
 This law has been enacted to stop the
anti- competitive practices which are
prevailing the the market (Rodger, 2015).
 As we know competition is necessary for
the sustainable developement of the
market and helps consumers in increasing
their reach as well as their choice.

JD Sports/ Go Outdoors
Merger Inquiry
 JD Sports acquired the Go Outdoors
Topco Limited
 Due to which both the parties will cease to
exist as separate entities.

Continued..
 As the case involved the creation of
merger situation under Enterprise Act
2002.
 The case was refered to Competition and
Markets Authority (CMA).

Statutory Time Table
Phase 1 Date Action
 18 May 2017  Decision announced
 20 March to 3 April 2017  Invitation to comment
 20 March 2017  Launch of merger inquiry
 22 December 2016  Initial enforcement order

Findings
 This may result in the reduction of the
choice in the UK market.
 Both the entities will fail to retain their
position as separate entities.

Final Decision
 The CMA granted the approval for a tie up
between sports retailer JD Sports and
outdoor brand Go Outdoors.
 This was agreed for a sum of £112m.
 This may result in increase of the
consumer base for the merged
organization.

REFERENCES
 Whish, R. and Bailey, D., 2015. Competition law.
Oxford University Press, USA.
 Graham, C., 2016. UK: The Concurrent Enforcement
by Regulators of Competition Law and Sector-
Specific Regulation. Journal of European
Competition Law & Practice, p.lpw016.
 Rodger, B.J., 2015. The Consumer Rights Act 2015
and collective redress for competition law
infringements in the UK: a class act?. Journal of
Antitrust Enforcement. 3(2). pp.258-286.