The Unicorn Is a Myth No More: A Ratio Decidendi Analysis on First Official Predatory Pricing Case in Indonesia

Zaid Zaid

Abstract


Predatory pricing has long been termed like a dragon or a unicorn because the practice is often considered irrational and therefore impossible to find or at least unlikely to work. However, the case that befell PT Conch South Kalimantan Cement broke the stigma in Indonesia, which was legally proven to practice predatory pricing through the Business Competition Commission Council (KPPU) Case Decision Number: 03/KPPU-L/2020. Considering that predatory pricing is complicated to prove because it requires certain elements to be fulfilled, this research then aims to analyze the predatory pricing elements, which became strong reasons that underlay the KPPU Council's determination of PT Conch South Kalimantan Cement as a predatory business actor so that it is entitled to be punished with billions of rupiah. By applying the normative method with a statutory, conceptual, and case approach through primary and secondary legal materials, which were analyzed by qualitative and prescriptive analysis, this study ultimately found the results that the elements in the form of business actors, supply, goods, selling at a loss or fixing a very low price, eliminating or shutting down the business of its competitors, the relevant market, and causing monopolistic practices and/or unfair business competition have become the ratio decidendi of the KPPU Council in determining the practice of predatory pricing. These reasons can then be used as decisions on similar issues in the future.

Keywords


predatory pricing; ratio decidendi; unicorn

Full Text:

PDF

References


Brunet, F., & Levy, V. (2017). ‘Eviction Prices’ and Predatory Prices (France). Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 8(10), 653–659. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpx024

Cheng, H. F. G. (2020). An Economic Perspective on The Inherent Plausibility and Frequency of Predatory Pricing: The Case for More Aggressive Regulation. European Competition Journal, 16(2–3), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441056.2020.1770478

Colangelo, M. (2013). The Interface between Competition Rules and Sector-Specific Regulation in the Telecommunications Sector: Evidence from Recent EU Margin Squeeze Cases. Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, 14(3), 214–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/178359171301400301

Diantha, I. M. P. (2016). Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Normatif dalam Justifikasi Teori Hukum. Jakarta: Prenada Media Group.

Easterbrook, F. H. (1981). Predatory Strategies and Counter Strategies. The University of Chicago Law Review, 48(2), 263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1599465

Elzinga, K. G., & Mills, D. E. (2014). Antitrust Predation and The Antitrust Paradox. The Journal of Law and Economics, 57(S3), S181–S200. https://doi.org/10.1086/676517

Febrina, R. (2017). Dampak Kegiatan Jual Rugi (Predatory Pricing) yang Dilakukan Pelaku Usaha dalam Perspektif Persaingan Usaha. Jurnal Selat, 4(2), 234–249.

Funk, M., & Jaag, C. (2018). The More Economic Approach to Predatory Pricing. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 14(2), 292–310. https://doi.org/10.1093/JOCLEC/NHY008

Giocoli, N. (2011). When Low is No Good: Predatory Pricing and U.S. Antitrust Law (1950–1980). The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 18(5), 777–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2011.616596

Giocoli, N. (2013). Games Judges Don’t Play: Predatory Pricing and Strategic Reasoning in US Antitrust. Supreme Court Economic Review, 21(1), 271–330. https://doi.org/10.1086/675271

Hawkins, J. R. (2016). Predatory Pricing in Antitrust Law and Economics: A Historical Perspective. Eastern Economic Journal, 42(3), 491–493. https://doi.org/10.1057/eej.2014.72

Hay, D. L., & Hay, G. A. (2015). Areeda–Turner “Down Under”: Predatory Pricing in Australia Before and After Boral. Review of Industrial Organization, 46(3), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-015-9461-4

Hufbauer, G., & Kim, J. (2009). International Competition Policy and the WTO. The Antitrust Bulletin, 54(2), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X0905400205

Kaplow, L. (2013). Competition Policy and Price Fixing. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha. (2009). Guidelines On Article 20 Concerning Predatory Pricing. Jakarta: KPPU.

Lindberg, R. (2003). The Ambiguity of Predatory Pricing: Strategy as a Clarifier (Master Thesis, Lund University, Lund, Swedia. Retrivied from https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1343096&fileOId=2433784.

Mateus, A. M. (2011). Predatory Pricing: A Proposed Structured Rule of Reason. European Competition Journal, 7(2), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.5235/174410511797248261

Mncube, L. (2013). Strategic Entry Deterrence: Pioneer Foods and The Bread Cartel. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 9(3), 637–654. https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nht004

Park, S. (2012). Market Power Revisited. Zerbe, R.O. and Kirkwood, J.B. (Eds.), Research in Law and Economics (Research in Law and Economics, Vol. 25). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0193-5895(2012)0000025004

Petzold, D. (2015). It Is All Predatory Pricing: Margin Squeeze Abuse and the Concept of Opportunity Costs in EU Competition Law. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 6(5), 346–350. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpv025

Rahmawati, C. R. (2021). Indikasi Predatory Pricing Yang Dilakukan Ovo Dengan Cara Burning Money. Jurist-Diction, 4(2), 585–598. https://doi.org/10.20473/jd.v4i2.25754

Régibeau, P., & Rockett, K. E. (2019). Mergers and Innovation. The Antitrust Bulletin, 64(1), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X18822576

Santoso, B. (2018). Predatory Pricing in The Telecommunication Business Advertisement in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 175, 012184. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/175/1/012184

Taylor, J. E., Moldoveanu, M., & Taylor, J. L. (2013). Product Characteristics and the Effectiveness of Dow’s Countermeasure for Predatory Pricing. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 20(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13571516.2012.750043

Wahyuningtyas, S. Y. (2016). The Online Transportation Network in Indonesia: A Pendulum between the Sharing Economy and Ex Ante Regulation. Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, 17(3–4), 260–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/178359171601700304

Zaid, Z., Dawaki, F. A., & Ololade, S. K. (2021). Should the State Control Tariffs? Journal of Governance and Public Policy, 8(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.18196/jgpp.811340

Law

Law No. 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Practices.

Decision

KPPU Council's Case Decision Number: 03/KPPU-L/2020, 2021.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.18196/jphk.v3i1.13099

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Editorial Office:
Master of Law, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

Second Floor of Postgraduate Building
Jl. Brawijaya, Tamantiro, Kasihan, Bantul, D.I. Yogyakarta, Indonesia 55183
Phone: 08224531887
Fax: (0274) 387646
Email: jphk@umy.ac.id