By: Martijn Snoep (Netherlands’ Authority for Consumers & Markets)
With over 25 years of the Dutch Competition Act being in force, the law has effectively addressed most types of competition problems. However, two discernible gaps exist in its scope. The first gap pertains to competition issues arising not from illegal practices but from, for instance, an implicit agreement among companies to align with each other’s price increases. In a previous blog, the author advocated for the introduction of a new statutory tool to address this gap, akin to the European market investigation tool or the New Competition Tool (NCT).
The second gap focuses on small acquisitions that do not require notification to the ACM and evade assessment, yet still contribute to competition problems. In this blog post, Martijn Snoep discusses the latter gap and concludes that there are valid reasons to address it through amendments to the Dutch Competition Act, empowering the ACM to intervene in suspected small acquisitions causing competition issues, subjecting them to regular procedural assessments…
Featured News
Big Tech Braces for Potential Changes Under a Second Trump Presidency
Nov 6, 2024 by
CPI
Trump’s Potential Shift in US Antitrust Policy Raises Questions for Big Tech and Mergers
Nov 6, 2024 by
CPI
EU Set to Fine Apple in First Major Enforcement of Digital Markets Act
Nov 5, 2024 by
CPI
Six Indicted in Federal Bid-Rigging Schemes Involving Government IT Contracts
Nov 5, 2024 by
CPI
Ireland Secures First €3 Billion Apple Tax Payment, Boosting Exchequer Funds
Nov 5, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Remedies Revisited
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Fixing the Fix: Updating Policy on Merger Remedies
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Methodology Matters: The 2017 FTC Remedies Study
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
U.S. v. AT&T: Five Lessons for Vertical Merger Enforcement
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
The Search for Antitrust Remedies in Tech Leads Beyond Antitrust
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI