What is the fundamental definition of price fixing?

Price fixing is defined as an anticompetitive agreement between participants on the same side of a market to either buy or sell a product, service, or commodity exclusively at a fixed price, or to maintain market conditions that keep prices at a certain level by controlling supply and demand. Essentially, it's a form of collusion where competitors agree on pricing rather than letting the market determine it.

What are the potential goals or intentions behind price fixing agreements?

The primary intention of price fixing is often to push the price of a product or service as high as possible, thereby increasing profits for all participating sellers. However, price fixing can also aim to fix, peg, discount, or stabilize prices at a predetermined level. The core characteristic is any agreement concerning price, whether explicitly stated or implicitly understood.

What is the essential requirement for price fixing to occur?

Price fixing necessitates a conspiracy or agreement between multiple parties, typically sellers or buyers, who are on the same side of the market. This coordinated action is undertaken for their mutual benefit, rather than allowing independent market forces to set prices.

Can you provide examples of specific agreements that constitute price fixing?

Yes, price fixing can manifest in various ways, including manufacturers and retailers agreeing on a common "retail" price, setting a minimum sales price below which sellers agree not to sell, agreeing on a maximum price to pay suppliers, adhering to a shared price book or list price, engaging in coordinated price advertising, standardizing credit terms for buyers, using uniform trade-in allowances, limiting discounts, discontinuing a service or fixing its price, uniformly adhering to previously announced prices, establishing uniform costs and markups, imposing mandatory surcharges, purposefully reducing output to increase prices, or sharing markets, territories, or customers.

Are all similar prices or simultaneous price changes indicative of price fixing?

No, not all similar prices or price changes occurring at the same time are necessarily price fixing. These situations can often be normal market phenomena. For instance, agricultural products like wheat may have similar prices due to their lack of unique characteristics, and their prices might rise simultaneously due to factors like natural disasters or increased consumer demand affecting limited supply.

According to neo-classical economics, what is the impact of price fixing?

In neo-classical economics, price fixing is considered inefficient. When producers agree to fix prices above the market rate, it results in a transfer of consumer surplus to those producers. Additionally, it leads to a deadweight loss, which represents an overall loss of economic efficiency for society.

What are some examples of international price fixing conspiracies that have been prosecuted?

International price fixing by private entities has been prosecuted under antitrust laws in various countries. Notable examples include cartels that controlled the prices and output of lysine, citric acid, graphite electrodes, and bulk vitamins.

How is price fixing treated under United States antitrust law?

In the United States, price fixing can be prosecuted as a criminal federal offense under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The U.S. Department of Justice handles criminal prosecutions, while the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over civil antitrust violations. Many state attorneys general also pursue antitrust cases.

What legal recourse is available to private parties affected by price fixing in the U.S.?

Private individuals or organizations can file lawsuits seeking triple damages for antitrust violations resulting from price fixing. Depending on the specific laws, they may also be able to recover their attorneys' fees and costs. Furthermore, under the Qui Tam provision of the False Claims Act, private individuals can bring civil actions on behalf of the United States if price fixing was used to defraud a government agency.

Can the mere exchange of pricing information between competitors be considered illegal in the U.S.?

Yes, under American antitrust laws, exchanging prices among competitors can violate these laws, especially if the intent is to fix prices or if the exchange influences the prices individual competitors set. Evidence of shared prices can be used as part of the proof of an illegal price-fixing agreement. Experts generally advise competitors to avoid even the appearance of agreeing on prices.

How have U.S. courts categorized price fixing since 1997?

Since 1997, U.S. courts have distinguished between vertical and horizontal price fixing. Vertical price fixing involves a manufacturer attempting to control the resale price of its product. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in *State Oil Co. v. Khan* that vertical price fixing is no longer considered a per se violation of the Sherman Act, meaning it requires further examination to determine illegality. However, horizontal price fixing remains a per se violation.

What was the outcome of the LCD panel price fixing case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California?

In a case involving price fixing of liquid crystal display panels, defendants including LG Display, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, and Sharp Corporation agreed to pay a total of $585 million in criminal fines to settle prosecutions. This settlement was historically significant, representing the second-largest amount awarded under the Sherman Act at that time.

What is the legal status of price fixing in Canada?

In Canada, price fixing is considered an indictable criminal offense under Section 45 of the Competition Act. Bid rigging is also explicitly recognized as a form of price fixing and is illegal under Section 47 of the same act.

How is price fixing addressed in Australia?

Price fixing is illegal in Australia under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. This act prohibits practices similar to those in the U.S. and Canada. The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) administers and enforces these provisions. Specifically, Section 48 prohibits resale price maintenance, and Section 96(3) provides a broad definition of what constitutes resale price maintenance.

What legislation governs price fixing in New Zealand?

In New Zealand, price fixing and most other anti-competitive behaviors are prohibited under the Commerce Act 1986. This act is enforced by the Commerce Commission and covers practices similar to those regulated in the U.S. and Canada.

How does the European Union address price fixing?

The European Union has implemented a leniency program, often referred to as the EU commission's leniency programme. This program encourages firms to report cartel activity and cooperate with the antitrust authority, offering reductions or complete waivers of prospective penalties for whistleblowing companies.

What is the legal stance on price fixing in the United Kingdom?

British competition law prohibits almost all attempts to fix prices. However, there are specific exceptions, such as in the magazine and newspaper distribution industry, and sometimes in the motion picture industry, where price fixing might still be legal. Retailers selling below the cover price in these sectors can face withdrawal of supply, a practice that has received approval from the Office of Fair Trading.

What was the Net Book Agreement in the UK, and what happened to it?

The Net Book Agreement was a public agreement among UK booksellers from 1900 to 1991 that stipulated new books could only be sold at the recommended retail price. This was intended to protect the revenues of smaller bookshops. The agreement eventually collapsed in 1991 when major book chains, starting with Dillons and followed by Waterstones, began offering discounts.

What is the specific exemption related to international airline tickets?

International airline tickets have their prices fixed by agreement through the International Air Transport Association (IATA). This practice benefits from a specific exemption within antitrust law, allowing for coordinated pricing in this sector.

What were the key details of the CD price fixing case between 1995 and 2000?

During the period of 1995 to 2000, music companies engaged in illegal marketing agreements, such as minimum advertised pricing, to artificially inflate the prices of compact discs. This practice aimed to end price wars initiated by discounters like Best Buy and Target in the early 1990s. It's estimated that customers were overcharged by nearly $500 million, with an average overcharge of up to $5 per album. A settlement in 2002 involved major music publishers, distributors, and retailers, resulting in a $67.4 million fine and the distribution of $75.7 million worth of CDs to public and non-profit groups.

What happened regarding price fixing in the DRAM chip market?

In October 2005, Samsung pleaded guilty to conspiring with other companies, including Infineon and Hynix Semiconductor, to fix the prices of DRAM chips. Samsung was fined $300 million, which was the second-largest antitrust penalty imposed by the U.S. at that time. Earlier, in October 2004, four executives from Infineon received reduced sentences after cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice's investigation into the conspiracy.

What were the findings and penalties in the French perfume price collusion case?

In 2006, the government of France fined 13 perfume brands and three vendors for price collusion that occurred between 1997 and 2000. Notable fines included L'Oréal (€4.1 million), Chanel (€3.0 million), Sephora (owned by LVMH) (€9.4 million), and Marionnaud (owned by Hutchison Whampoa) (€12.8 million).

What were the consequences of the liquid crystal display (LCD) panel price fixing scheme in the U.S. and EU?

In the U.S., LG Display, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, and Sharp Corp. agreed to plead guilty in 2008 and pay a combined $585 million in criminal fines for conspiring to fix LCD panel prices. LG Display alone paid $400 million. In 2010, the EU fined LG Display €215 million, and other companies like Chimei Innolux, AU Optronics, Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., and HannStar Display Corp. were fined a combined €648.9 million for their involvement in the same scheme.

What price fixing activities occurred in the air cargo market?

In late 2005 and early 2006, airlines like Lufthansa and Virgin Atlantic revealed their participation in large price-fixing schemes for cargo and passenger surcharges, involving 21 airlines since 2000. The U.S. Department of Justice fined these airlines a total of $1.7 billion, charged 19 executives, and secured prison terms for four. In New Zealand, the Commerce Commission filed legal proceedings against 13 airlines for colluding to raise prices via fuel charges for over seven years, with Air New Zealand being the final airline to settle in 2013.

What legal actions have been taken regarding price fixing in the tuna industry?

Attempts to fix the price of tuna have led to significant penalties. Bumble Bee Foods was fined $25 million in 2017, and StarKist received a $100 million fine in 2020. Furthermore, Christopher Lischewski, the former CEO of Bumble Bee, was sentenced to 40 months in jail and fined $100,000 for his involvement in price fixing between 2010 and 2013.

How did price fixing relate to coronavirus vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, companies like Pfizer and Moderna announced varying prices for their coronavirus vaccines, depending on the agreements established with different governments. Pfizer's CEO expressed concern that U.S. executive orders aimed at lowering prescription drug costs would cause significant disruption to the pharmaceutical industry.

What actions did the U.S. Department of Justice take regarding airline data sharing in the 1990s?

In the 1990s, the U.S. Department of Justice prevented airlines from using software to share data on routes and prices before this information became publicly available, thereby curbing potential price-fixing activities.

What is the concern surrounding RealPage's rent-setting algorithm?

A 2022 investigation by ProPublica highlighted the use of algorithms created by RealPage by rental companies across the United States to set rents. Critics worry that this practice has contributed to rising rents by limiting competition among landlords, as the algorithm may facilitate coordinated pricing strategies.

What are some potential indicators of price fixing during the bidding process?

Signs that might suggest price fixing during bidding include bids or quoted prices that are significantly higher than expected, all suppliers simultaneously increasing prices beyond input cost changes, a new supplier offering a price lower than the established corporate bidding price (potentially indicating existing collusion), or a new supplier's price dropping significantly after bidding, which could suggest they forced previously colluding suppliers to compete.

What are the broader impacts of price fixing on consumers and businesses?

Price fixing can affect consumers' choices by limiting options and potentially increasing prices. It can also negatively impact small businesses that depend on suppliers, especially if freight prices are artificially increased, which then ripples through the entire supply chain, raising the cost of goods and services.

What is the economic liberal perspective on price fixing legislation?

Economic liberals generally view price fixing as a voluntary agreement between parties that should not be subject to government intervention. They argue that price fixing can sometimes ensure market stability for both consumers and producers. They also contend that legislation against price fixing can inadvertently lead to monopolies by forcing smaller producers out of the market, ultimately resulting in higher prices for consumers.

What is the difference between price fixing and resale price maintenance?

Price fixing generally refers to agreements between competitors on the same side of the market to set prices. Resale price maintenance (RPM), also known as retail price maintenance, specifically involves agreements where a manufacturer or supplier dictates the minimum or maximum price at which its products can be resold by retailers or distributors. While both are forms of price control, RPM is typically vertical (between different levels of the supply chain), whereas price fixing is often horizontal (between competitors).

How does the concept of 'market power' relate to price fixing?

Market power is the ability of a firm to profitably raise the market price of a good or service over its marginal cost. Price fixing is a strategy employed by firms, often those with significant market power or acting collectively to gain it, to maintain prices above competitive levels. By agreeing on prices, firms attempt to exercise collective market power to their advantage.

What is the role of regulatory agencies in combating price fixing?

Regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission, the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, and the European Commission, play a crucial role in investigating, prosecuting, and penalizing price fixing activities. They enforce antitrust laws designed to maintain fair competition and protect consumers from the negative effects of collusive pricing.

What does the term 'per se violation' mean in the context of U.S. antitrust law regarding price fixing?

A 'per se violation' under U.S. antitrust law means that an activity is considered illegal automatically, without the need for further inquiry into its actual effects on the market. Horizontal price fixing is treated as a per se violation under the Sherman Act, meaning any agreement between competitors on prices is illegal, regardless of whether the prices were reasonable or whether the agreement actually harmed consumers.

What is the significance of the 'SSNIP test' in competition law?

The SSNIP test, which stands for 'Small but Significant and Non-transitory Increase in Price,' is a tool used in competition law, particularly in defining relevant markets. It helps determine if a hypothetical monopolist could profitably impose a small price increase. If a price increase would cause consumers to switch to alternatives, the market is considered broader; if they cannot easily switch, the market is considered narrower. This is relevant in assessing market concentration and potential for anti-competitive behavior like price fixing.

How can 'barriers to entry' facilitate price fixing?

Barriers to entry are obstacles that make it difficult for new companies to enter a market. High barriers to entry can make it easier for existing competitors to engage in price fixing because they reduce the threat of new entrants disrupting the agreed-upon prices. When it's hard for new competitors to enter, the existing players can maintain higher prices for longer without fear of being undercut.

What is 'market concentration' and how does it relate to price fixing?

Market concentration refers to the degree to which a small number of firms control a large share of the market. High market concentration, where a few firms dominate, can increase the likelihood and effectiveness of price fixing. It is easier for a small group of companies to coordinate their pricing strategies and enforce agreements compared to a market with many small competitors.

What is the 'essential facilities doctrine' in competition law?

The essential facilities doctrine is a legal principle used in antitrust law that requires a monopolist controlling a facility or resource essential for competitors to access it, to provide access to those competitors on reasonable terms. Refusal to grant access can be considered an anti-competitive practice. This doctrine is relevant in contexts where control over a critical resource could be used to exclude rivals or facilitate price fixing.

What is 'predatory pricing' and how does it differ from price fixing?

Predatory pricing is a strategy where a dominant company sets prices very low, often below cost, to drive competitors out of the market. Once competitors are eliminated, the company can then raise prices. This differs from price fixing, which is an agreement between competitors (often horizontal) to set prices at a certain level, typically high, for mutual benefit, rather than to eliminate competition through low prices.

What is 'bid rigging'?

Bid rigging is a specific form of price fixing where participants in a bidding process agree not to compete or to take turns winning contracts. This ensures that the contract is awarded to a predetermined participant, often at an inflated price, thereby eliminating genuine competition among the bidders.

What is 'tacit collusion'?

Tacit collusion occurs when firms in a market coordinate their actions, such as pricing, without an explicit agreement. This can happen when firms observe each other's behavior and independently adjust their strategies in a way that benefits all, such as matching price increases or avoiding price wars. While not an explicit agreement like price fixing, it can still lead to anti-competitive outcomes and may be scrutinized under antitrust laws.

How can 'regulatory capture' be related to price fixing?

Regulatory capture is a situation where a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. If a regulatory agency is captured, it might be less likely to investigate or penalize price fixing activities within that industry, or it might even implicitly condone them.

Price Fixing Wiki: The Collusion Codex: Unpacking Price Fixing

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

When you are ready...
🎮 Play the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge Game🎮

Defining Price Fixing

Anticompetitive Agreements

Price fixing constitutes an anticompetitive agreement among participants on the same side of a market. This involves agreeing to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity exclusively at a predetermined price, or manipulating market conditions to maintain prices at a specific level by controlling supply and demand.^[1]

Objectives and Mechanisms

The primary objective of price fixing is often to maximize profits for all sellers by setting prices artificially high. However, it can also aim to fix, peg, discount, or stabilize prices. The core characteristic is any agreement concerning price, whether explicit or implicit.^[1]

Distinguishing from Market Norms

It is crucial to differentiate price fixing from normal market phenomena. Similar pricing or simultaneous price changes do not inherently indicate collusion. For instance, uniform prices for undifferentiated commodities like agricultural products or synchronized price increases due to natural disasters or demand shifts are typically market-driven, not the result of illegal agreements.^[1]

Global Legal Frameworks

United States

In the U.S., price fixing is a criminal offense under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Federal Trade Commission also holds jurisdiction over civil antitrust violations. State attorneys general also pursue such cases. Private parties can file lawsuits for triple damages. Exchanging price information among competitors, even without explicit agreement, can be evidence of illegal price fixing.^[3]^[5]

Vertical price fixing (manufacturer controlling retail price) is no longer a per se violation, but horizontal price fixing remains illegal.^[6]

Canada

Price fixing is an indictable criminal offense in Canada under Section 45 of the Competition Act. Bid rigging, a specific form of price fixing, is also illegal under Section 47.^[45]

Australia

Price fixing is prohibited under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) enforces these provisions. Section 48 explicitly prohibits resale price maintenance, with broader definitions in Section 96(3).^[48]

New Zealand

The Commerce Act 1986 prohibits price fixing and other anti-competitive behaviors. Enforcement is handled by the Commerce Commission.^[9]^[10]

European Union

The EU's leniency program incentivizes whistleblowing by reducing or eliminating penalties for firms that cooperate with antitrust authorities in price-fixing investigations.^[11]

United Kingdom

British competition law largely prohibits price fixing. Historically, the Net Book Agreement (1900-1991) maintained fixed book prices, but it collapsed due to discounting. While generally illegal, specific industry exceptions, such as in magazine distribution, have existed.^[12]^[13]^[14]

Specific Exemptions

Sovereign Agreements

Agreements to control prices sanctioned by multilateral treaties or entered into by sovereign nations, rather than individual firms, may be protected from lawsuits and antitrust prosecution. A prime example is OPEC, the global petroleum cartel, which has historically operated outside the scope of U.S. antitrust law.^[16]

Industry-Specific Waivers

International airline tickets have historically had their prices fixed through agreements managed by the International Air Transport Association (IATA). This practice has benefited from specific exemptions within antitrust law.^[16]

Notable Cases & Examples

Compact Discs (1995-2000)

Music companies engaged in illegal marketing agreements, including minimum advertised pricing, to inflate CD prices and end discounter price wars. This resulted in an estimated $500 million in overcharges. Settlements involved major labels and retailers, leading to fines and distribution of CDs as restitution.^[1]

Dynamic RAM (DRAM)

In 2005, Samsung pleaded guilty to conspiring with other chip manufacturers to fix DRAM prices, resulting in a $300 million fine. Executives from other companies also faced penalties for their involvement in this international cartel.^[17]

Capacitors (2018)

The European Commission fined eight firms, primarily Japanese, €254 million for operating an illegal price cartel for capacitors. Nippon Chemi-Con and Hitachi Chemical were among the largest penalized entities.^[17]

Perfume (2006)

The French government fined 13 perfume brands and three vendors for price collusion between 1997 and 2000. Companies like L'Oréal, Chanel, and LVMH faced significant fines.^[18]

Liquid Crystal Displays (LCDs)

In 2008, LG Display, Sharp, and Chunghwa Picture Tubes agreed to plead guilty and pay $585 million in U.S. criminal fines for conspiring to fix LCD panel prices. The EU also imposed substantial fines on related companies.^[19]^[20]^[23]

Air Cargo Market (2005-2006)

Investigations revealed widespread price-fixing schemes for cargo and passenger surcharges involving numerous airlines. This led to substantial fines totaling $1.7 billion in the U.S. and legal proceedings in other countries like New Zealand.^[26]^[27]

Tuna (2017-2020)

Price-fixing attempts in the tuna market resulted in significant fines for Bumble Bee Foods ($25 million) and StarKist ($100 million). The former CEO of Bumble Bee received a prison sentence for his involvement.^[30]

Coronavirus Vaccine

During the COVID-19 pandemic, differing vaccine pricing announced by companies like Pfizer and Moderna, influenced by government deals, sparked debate regarding pricing strategies and potential impacts on the pharmaceutical industry.^[31]

Rent Algorithm (ProPublica Investigation)

An investigation by ProPublica highlighted the use of algorithms by rental companies to set rents, raising concerns about limiting competition and artificially increasing housing costs. The U.S. DOJ has escalated its investigation and filed antitrust lawsuits in this area.^[32]^[33]^[34]

Indicators During Bidding

Suspicious Pricing Patterns

Several signs may indicate potential price fixing during the bidding process:

Unusually High Bids: Bid prices significantly exceeding expectations could suggest collusion or simply overpricing, though the latter is legal.
Synchronized Price Increases: All suppliers raising prices simultaneously, beyond justifiable cost changes, is a red flag.
New Supplier Dynamics: A new supplier offering a lower price might indicate existing companies colluding to maintain higher prices, or it could be a new entrant forcing competition.
Post-Bid Price Drops: A significant price decrease from a new supplier after initial bidding could suggest they were forced to compete against a previously collusive group.^[35]

Economic Consequences

Consumer and Business Effects

Price fixing significantly impacts consumers by limiting choices and increasing costs. It also affects small businesses reliant on suppliers, as artificially inflated prices ripple through the entire supply chain. For example, increased freight costs due to collusion can lead to higher prices for goods and services, ultimately impacting consumer purchasing decisions.^[36]^[35]

Inefficiency and Deadweight Loss

From a neo-classical economic perspective, price fixing is inefficient. Agreements to set prices above market rates transfer consumer surplus to producers and create a deadweight loss—a loss of economic efficiency that occurs when the equilibrium outcome is not achieved.^[1]

Legislative Critiques

Economic Liberal Arguments

Economic liberals argue that price fixing, when voluntary and consensual, should be free from government intervention. They contend that such agreements can stabilize markets for both producers and consumers. Short-term price competition, they argue, can lead to market exits, product shortages, and eventual monopolies anyway. Legislation against price fixing, in this view, may inadvertently lead to the very market consolidation it seeks to prevent.^[37]

Related Concepts

Further Exploration

Understanding price fixing often involves exploring related concepts in competition law and economics:

Antitrust Law
Bid Rigging
Collusion
Monopoly and Oligopoly
Price Controls
Price Gouging
Resale Price Maintenance
Tacit Collusion
Relevant Market Definition
Market Power
Cartels

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

Edit and Print Materials from this study in the wiki2web studio

Click here to open the "Price Fixing" Wiki2Web Studio curriculum kit

Use the free Wiki2web Studio to generate printable flashcards, worksheets, exams, and export your materials as a web page or an interactive game.

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Learn about price_fixing while playing the wiki2web Clarity Challenge game.

Unlock the mystery image and prove your knowledge by earning trophies. This simple game is addictively fun and is a great way to learn!

Play now

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

javier Álvarez songwriter

kejaw èn

economic geography

fenethylline

1944 united states presidential election in north dakota

2021 north shropshire by-election

References

A full list of references for this article are available at the Price fixing Wikipedia page

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Disclaimer

Important Notice

This page was generated by an Artificial Intelligence and is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content is based on a snapshot of publicly available data from Wikipedia and may not be entirely accurate, complete, or up-to-date.

This is not legal or financial advice. The information provided on this website is not a substitute for professional legal consultation, financial advice, or regulatory guidance. Always consult with qualified professionals for specific legal, financial, or business matters. Never disregard professional advice because of something you have read on this website.

The creators of this page are not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for any actions taken based on the information provided herein.

The Collusion Codex

💡 Dive in with Flashcard Learning! 💡

Defining Price Fixing ℹ️

🤝 Anticompetitive Agreements

💰 Objectives and Mechanisms

⚖️ Distinguishing from Market Norms

Global Legal Frameworks 🌍

🇺🇸 United States

🇨🇦 Canada

🇦🇺 Australia

🇳🇿 New Zealand

🇪🇺 European Union

🇬🇧 United Kingdom

Specific Exemptions 🛡️

🏛️ Sovereign Agreements

✈️ Industry-Specific Waivers

Notable Cases & Examples 📜

🎶 Compact Discs (1995-2000)

💾 Dynamic RAM (DRAM)

⚡ Capacitors (2018)

🌸 Perfume (2006)

🖥️ Liquid Crystal Displays (LCDs)

🚚 Air Cargo Market (2005-2006)

🐟 Tuna (2017-2020)

💉 Coronavirus Vaccine

🏢 Rent Algorithm (ProPublica Investigation)

Indicators During Bidding 🔍

❗ Suspicious Pricing Patterns

Economic Consequences 📊

📉 Consumer and Business Effects

💸 Inefficiency and Deadweight Loss

Legislative Critiques 💬

💡 Economic Liberal Arguments

Related Concepts 🔗

📚 Further Exploration

Teacher's Corner 🧑‍🏫

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

True or False? 🤔

❓ Test Your Knowledge! ❓

Gamer's Corner 🎮

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Explore More Topics

📜 Discover other topics to study!

References

📜 References

Feedback & Support 👍

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Disclaimer ⚠️

📜 Important Notice

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

Defining Price Fixing

Anticompetitive Agreements

Objectives and Mechanisms

Distinguishing from Market Norms

Global Legal Frameworks

United States

Canada

Australia

New Zealand

European Union

United Kingdom

Specific Exemptions

Sovereign Agreements

Industry-Specific Waivers

Notable Cases & Examples

Compact Discs (1995-2000)

Dynamic RAM (DRAM)

Capacitors (2018)

Perfume (2006)

Liquid Crystal Displays (LCDs)

Air Cargo Market (2005-2006)

Tuna (2017-2020)

Coronavirus Vaccine

Rent Algorithm (ProPublica Investigation)

Indicators During Bidding

Suspicious Pricing Patterns

Economic Consequences

Consumer and Business Effects

Inefficiency and Deadweight Loss

Legislative Critiques

Economic Liberal Arguments

Related Concepts

Further Exploration

Teacher's Corner

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Discover other topics to study!

References

Feedback & Support

Disclaimer

Important Notice