The Unicorn Is a Myth No More: A Ratio Decidendi Analysis on First Official Predatory Pricing Case in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18196/jphk.v3i1.13099Keywords:
predatory pricing, ratio decidendi, unicornAbstract
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.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.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright statementAuthors who publish with JURNAL PENEGAKAN HUKUM DAN KEADILAN agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
- ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
JPHK is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
