By Nicole Daniel
In January 2017 Apple filed suit against Qualcomm over its allegedly abusive licensing practices regarding wireless patents.
Apple filed patent, antitrust and breach of contract claims against Qualcomm; this could result in damages of billions of dollars. Apple’s suit comes after recent legal challenges against Qualcomm filed by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in federal court and a class action by smartphone buyers. Furthermore, Korean authorities levied their own $854 million penalty and China’s National Development and Reform Commission extracted a penalty amounting to nearly $1 billion in 2015. Also in 2015 the European Commission sent statements of objections to Qualcomm.
Apple alleges that Qualcomm abused its monopoly in baseband processors that power both the iPad and the iPhone and broke its promise to license its standard essential patents at FRAND, i.e. fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory, rates. Qualcomm breached its FRAND obligations by selling chipsets powering smartphones and tablets and separately licensing standard-essential patents. Apple further alleges that Qualcomm refused to sell chipsets to customers unless they first licensed their standard-essential patents. This allegation is central to the Federal Trade Commission’s case too as well as Apple’s allegation that Qualcomm does not licence its standard-essential patents to competing chipset manufacturers. Tying the chipsets and licenses to cellular technology illegally strengthened Qualcomm’s monopoly and eliminated competition. Another allegation by Apple is that Qualcomm threatened customers who purchased chipsets from competitors with less favorable license and royaltyi terms.
Not only did Qualcomm charge inflated royalties for its patents but it also engaged in allegedly intimidating business practices. For example, Qualcomm allegedly tried to force Apple to lie to the South Korean antitrust enforcer in exchange for $1 billion which Qualcomm was obliged to pay anyway. Apple further states that because it provided evidence in antitrust investigations against Qualcomm in the U.S. and Korea, Qualcomm, as retribution, withheld $1 billion that it owed to Apple. Apple now wants damages for having been overcharged billions of dollars, enjoin Qualcomm from engaging in further violations of the law and declaratory relief holding that Apple does not infringe on a number of patents owned by Qualcomm. Apple also asks the court to determine the proper FRAND rates.
Qualcomm countered by calling Apple’s allegations “baseless” and accusing its opponent of encouraging the regulatory “attacks” on Qualcomm. Also the antitrust claims are driven by commercial disputes and Qualcomm will continue to defend its business model.
Furthermore, Qualcomm learned in January 2017 that an Apple subsidiary filed two complaints against Qualcomm in the Chinese intellectual property court. The first complaint regards inter alia violations of Chinese anti-monopoly law by offering excessive royalty terms on patents and chipsets whereas the second complaint regards a refusal to provide to Apple a royalty offer for cellular standard essential patents consistent with FRAND terms.
In April 2017 Qualcomm filed an answer and counterclaims in California federal court. In its filing Qualcomm detailed the value of the technologies it has invented and alleged that Apple failed to engage in good faith negotiations for licensing 3G and 4G essential patents on FRAND terms. The filing further outlines that Apple allegedly breached and mischaracterized both agreements and negotiations. Apple further encouraged regulatory attacks in various jurisdictions and did not utilize the full performance of Qualcomm’s modern chips in the iPhone 7. Apple allegedly also misrepresented the disparity in performance between iPhones using competitor-supplied modems and Qualcomm modems. Qualcomm was even threatened by Apple to prevent it from making any public comparisons about the superior performance of iPhones powered by Qualcomm.
Also in April 2017 Apple published a written statement stating that it has chosen to withhold patent royalties owed to Qualcomm by its contract manufacturers because over the course of the last five years Qualcomm has refused to negotiate fair terms.
It remains to be seen how the proceedings in this case continue.
By Maria E. Sturm
On March 27, 2017 the EU Commission cleared the merger of two U.S. chemical companies – The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) and E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) according to the EU Merger Regulation. The Commission opened the investigation already in August 2016. The reason for the merger being cleared only now, were strong concerns of the EU Commission, which is the highest antitrust regulating authority in the EU. The EU Commission has the competence and duty to control mergers that exceed the thresholds laid down in Article 1 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (EU Merger Regulation). The merger creates the largest crop protection and seed company in an already highly concentrated market. The field of business of Dow and DuPont is particularly sensitive, as farmers strongly depend on seeds and crop protection at affordable prices.
There were three main issues of concern: The EU Commission expected (1) higher prices, (2) less choice for consumers and (3) substantially less innovation.
Both companies operate in two areas: pesticides and petrochemical products.
Pesticides comprise herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. Due to the very high market share of Dow and DuPont, after their merger hardly any competitors would be left on the market. This development would most probably lead to higher prices and less choice for consumers. Furthermore, the merger would have detrimental effects on the innovation efforts in the pesticide branch. Globally, only five enterprises (BASF, Bayer, Syngenta, Dow and DuPont) participate in the research and development activity with regard to pesticides, because only those enterprises have the capacity to do large scale research on all three fields of pesticides. Other competitors in this area have no or only very limited research and development capacities and therefore cannot trigger innovation activity on the market. However, innovation is essential to develop pesticides that are less nocuous, more effective or can help when vermin have developed resistances.
Dow and DuPont agreed on selling the worldwide herbicide and insecticide production of DuPont, the worldwide research and development capacities of DuPont and the exclusive license for a DuPont fungicide for rice crop for the European market.
Dow and DuPont are both in the acid copolymers business. Their merger would reduce the number of competitors in this business from four to three. Furthermore, DuPont has a dominant position in the ionomers business.
Dow sells both its production facilities in Spain and the United States. Furthermore, it terminates its contract with a ionomer provider from whom Dow received the ionomers it sold to its customers.
Dow and DuPont were able to clear initial concerns of the EU Commission about nematicides and seeds. These areas are therefore not affected by the merger decision.
Further mergers are planned in the agro-chemical sector. However, due to the “priority rule” the commission assesses every merger in the order of its notification according to the current market situation. It will be interesting to see, how later mergers will be affected by the Dow/DuPont decision.
Big Data: Italian Authorities Launch Inquiries on Competition, Consumer Protection and Data Privacy Issues
By Gabriele Accardo
On 30 May 2017, the Italian Competition Authority, the Italian Data Protection Authority and the Communications Authority opened a joint inquiry on “Big Data”.
The joint sector inquiry by the Italian Competition Authority, the Italian Data Protection Authority and the Communications Authority will focus, respectively, on potential competition and consumer protection concerns, data privacy, as well as on information pluralism within the digital ecosystem.
First, based on the assumption that the collection of information and its use through complex algorithms have a strategic role for firms, especially for those offering online platforms, which use the collected data to create new forms of value, the inquiry will thus assess whether, and under which circumstances, access to “Big Data” might constitute a barrier to entry, or in any case facilitate anticompetitive practices that could possibly hinder development and technological progress.
Secondly, the use of such large amounts of information may create specific risks for users’ privacy given that new technologies and new forms of data analysis in many cases allow companies to “re-identify” an individual through apparently anonymous data, and may even allow them to carry out new forms of discrimination, and, more generally, to possibly restrict freedom.
A further risk for the digital ecosystem is linked to how online news is now commonly accessed. In fact, digital intermediaries employ users’ information forms of profiling and the definition of algorithms, which in turn, are able to affect both the preservation of the net neutrality principle, and the plurality of the representations of facts and opinions.
It may be expected that while the inquiry will focus on certain specific businesses (typically platforms-related), the authorities may send requests for information to all businesses that collect and make significant use of customer/user data.
Relatedly, on 10 May 2016, French and German Competition Authorities published their joint report on competition law and Big Data. Separately, the French Competition Authority announced the launch of a full-blown sector inquiry into data-related markets and strategies.
In recent months, data-related issues have been at the core of specific investigations by the Italian Competition Authority (against Enel, A2A and ACEA for an alleged abuse of dominance, and against Samsung and WhatsApp for unfair commercial practices), and the Italian Data Protection Authority (against WhatsApp), showing that Italian authorities are getting ready for the challenges that the data-driven economy brings.
Enel, A2A, and ACEA, ongoing investigations on alleged abuse of dominance
On 11 May 2017, following a complaint by the association of energy wholesalers, the Italian competition Authority (“ICA”) raided the business premises of Enel, A2A and ACEA in order to ascertain whether the energy operators may have abused their dominant positions in the electricity market in order to induce their respective customers (private individuals and small businesses) to switch to their market-based electricity contracts.
In particular, according to the ICA, each energy operator may have used “privileged” commercial information (e.g., contact details and invoicing data) about customers eligible for regulated electricity tariffs (so-called Servizio di maggior tutela), which was held in the capacity as incumbent operator(s) (at national level for Enel, and in the Milan and Rome areas for A2A and ACEA, respectively), as well as its dedicated business infrastructure to sell its market-price electricity supply contracts to private individuals and small business customers.
Enel may have also misled consumers by stating that it would be able to guarantee a more secure energy supply than Green Network in order to win-back “former” customers, and thus induce them to choose its contracts.
The investigation is similar to the one recently concluded by the French Competition Authority against energy operator Engie, which resulted in a fine of Euro 100 Million.
Interestingly, both investigations in Italy and France raise issues similar to those addressed in September 2015 by the Belgian Competition Authority against the Belgian National Lottery. The Belgian Authority held that the Belgian National Lottery used personal data acquired as a public monopoly to the market its new product Scooore! on the adjacent sports betting market. The Belgian Competition Authority found that such conduct constituted an abuse of dominance insofar as the information used by the infringer could not be replicated by its competitors in a timely and cost-effective manner.
Samsung – unfair commercial practices
On 25 January 2017, the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”) levied a 3.1 Million Euro fine on Samsung in relation to two unfair commercial practices related to the marketing of its products, one of which concerned the forced transfer of personal information for marketing purposes.
In essence, Samsung promoted the sale of its electronic products by promising prizes and bonuses (e.g. discounts, bonus on the electricity bill, and free subscription to a TV content provider) to consumers. However, contrary to what the advertising promised, consumers could not get the prize or bonus when buying the product, but could only receive it at a later stage, following a complex procedure that was not advertised, but was only made available in the Terms and Conditions and to consumers who registered on Samsung People online. Besides, consumers were repeatedly requested to provide documents over and over again.
The ICA also found the practice of making discounts conditional upon registering with the company’s digital platform and giving consent to the processing of their data unfair and aggressive, insofar as consumers could not get the promised prize or bonus without giving their consent to the commercial use of their personal data, which were used by Samsung for purposes unrelated with the promotional offer of the product itself. The ICA thus found that the data requested by Samsung were irrelevant and unrelated to the specific promotion in question.
WhatsApp – unfair commercial practices and privacy issues
This is yet another case concerning the forced transfer of personal information for marketing purposes, which followed the same lines of the Samsung case.
Preliminarily, the ICA held that data is a form of information asset, and that an economic value can be attached to it (e.g., Facebook would in fact be able to improve its advertising activity with more data). The ICA further found that a commercial relationship exists in all instances where a business offers a “free” service to consumers in order to acquire their data.
- users were not provided with adequate information on the possibility of denying consent to share with Facebook their personal data on WhatsApp account;
- the option to share the data was pre-selected (opt-in) so that, while users could in fact have chosen not to give their assent to the data sharing and still continue to use the service, such a possibility was not readily clear and in any event users should have removed the pre-selected choice;
During the investigation, WhatsApp offered a set of remedies, but this offer was rejected by the ICA, based on the fact that, as a result of the methods used by WhatsApp to obtain customers’ consent to transfer their data to Facebook, the practice could be characterized as overtly unfair and aggressive, and as such deserved a fine (in any case WhatsApp halted the practice of sharing data with Facebook in light of ongoing discussions with national data protection agencies in Europe).
Interestingly, while the ICA decision is based on consumer protection grounds, last year the German Federal Cartel (FCO) Bundeskartellamt launched an investigation into similar conducts by Facebook, WhatsApp’s mother company, based on competition law grounds. Specifcally, the investigation was based on suspicions that with its specific terms of service on the use of user data, Facebook may have abused its alleged dominant position in the market for social networks. In particular, the presence of excessive trading conditions is the underlying theory of harm for the investigation launched by the FCO. In particular, the FCO is assessing whether Facebook’s position allows it to impose contractual terms that would otherwise not be accepted by its users.
Yet, consumer, competition law, and privacy considerations appear entangled in such cases, as shown by the investigation that Italian Data Protection Authority launched against WhatsApp in parallel with the ICA.
It is understood that while the investigation is still ongoing, the Italian Data Protection Authority requested WhatsApp and Facebook to provide information in order to assess the case thoroughly. In particular, the two companies were asked detailed information on:
- data categories that WhatsApp would like to make available to Facebook;
- arrangements that are in place to obtain users’ consent to disclose their data;
- measures that have been taken to enable exercise of users’ rights under Italy’s privacy legislation, since the notice given to users on their devices would appear to only allow withdrawing consent and objecting to data disclosure for a limited period.
In addition, the Italian Data Protection Authority is seeking to clarify whether the data of WhatsApp users that do not use Facebook will be also disclosed to that company, insofar as no reference to marketing purposes was in the information notice provided initially to WhatsApp users.
Businesses are moving fast to figure out how to best harness the wealth of consumer’s data and make good commercial use of it. Authorities around the globe are putting together their toolkits to address emerging issues in the data-driven economy.
In this cops and robbers game, it appears clear that businesses are struggling to understand which set of rules may apply to their business models, either because there are multiple laws that could potentially apply or because the rules are indeed not readily foreseeable or clear. Obviously, if the same conduct can be caught from many angles, then there is something wrong that need to be addressed, if that can stifle innovation.
That said, the message for businesses sent by these mushrooming initiatives in Europe and around the world is clear: consumers’ freedom to choose whether or not to allow their data to be transferred to parties intending to use this information in order to generate a profit from it should be and will be protected. Enforcers will tackle conduct that unduly influences consumers’ ability to take informed and free decisions.
U.S. District Court Dismisses a Sherman Act Class Action Lawsuit Brought by Former and Current Bureau of Prison Inmates for lack of Antitrust Injury
By Valerio Cosimo Romano
On 28 February 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (hereinafter, “District Court”) dismissed a putative class action lawsuit filed by current and released Bureau of Prison (“BOP”) inmates who purchased MP3 players and music or other audio files against Advanced Technologies Group LLC (“ATG”) and SanDisk Corporation (SanDisk”).
The plaintiffs were former and current BOP inmates. While incarcerated, plaintiffs purchased MP3 players on the BOP-operated facility’s “Commissary List” of items for sale, which included only those products that met special security features and had the ability to interface with BOP’s Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer System (“TRULINCS”). Indeed, in 2012 BOP and ATG signed a contract granting ATG the exclusive right to supply prison-restricted MP3 players and MP3 music to BOP inmates. In turn, ATG and SanDisk entered into an agreement for SanDisk to exclusively supply the prison-restricted MP3 players to ATG, pursuant to which only one brand and model of MP3 player was available for sale to inmates. The authorized device was not connected to the internet, but could only download approved music and audio books through TRULINCS. Inmates could purchase as many as 1,500 songs, which were stored on the MP3 player. When prisoners were released from BOP custody and they lost access to TRULINC, the MP3 players became inoperable and the prisoners lost access to the purchased audio files. Plaintiffs allege that this loss could only be avoided by buying a post-release MP3 player manufactured by SanDisk and sold by ATG. Also, according to plaintiffs, ATG will not restore any content to a third party player.
Plaintiffs therefore allege that defendants engaged in unlawful tying or a conspiracy to engage in unlawful tying in violation of §1 of the Sherman Act and in unlawful monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy to monopolize in violation of §2 of the Sherman Act. More specifically, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants unlawfully tied the purchase of prison-restricted MP3 players to the purchase of a post-release MP3 player, and further allege that defendants’ conduct has exclusionary and anticompetitive effects with respect to the market for post-release MP3 players. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack antitrust standing.
First, The District Court recalled the relevant factors for the establishment of standing to bring an antitrust action, as articulated by the Supreme Court in Associated Gen. Contractors of Calif. and summarized by the Sixth Circuit in Southhaven Land. These factors are: (i) the causal connection between the antitrust violation and the harm to the plaintiff and the intent of the defendant to cause that harm, with neither factor alone sufficient to confer standing; (ii) whether the plaintiff’s alleged injury is of the type for which the antitrust laws were intended to provide redress; (iii) the directness of the injury, which addresses the concerns that liberal application of standing principles might produce speculative claims; (iv) the existence of more direct victims of the alleged antitrust violations; and (v) the potential for duplicative recovery or complex apportionment of damages.
Second, the District Court held that, despite the fact that the factors have to be balanced, antitrust injury is a necessary component, and, therefore, where a plaintiff fails to establish an antitrust injury, the court must dismiss the complaint as a matter of law.
Third, the District Court ruled that an injury will not qualify as an antitrust injury unless it is attributable to an anticompetitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny. In this sense, adhering to the principles established in Standfacts Credit Servs., the District Court held that no cognizable antitrust injury could be identified where the alleged injury is a “byproduct of the regulatory scheme” or federal law rather than of the defendant’s business practices, and in this case, the injury stems from BOP policy rather than anticompetitive conduct by Defendants.
In light of the above, the District Court concluded that antitrust injury was lacking to support Plaintiff’s Sherman Act claims against defendants. Therefore, it granted motion to dismiss the defendants’ antitrust complaint as well as additional common law and state law claims.
By Valerio Cosimo Romano
On 31 October 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”) held that the invocation of IPRs is a presumptively valid business justification sufficient to rebut a refusal to deal claim.
The case involved a dispute between a software company and the developer of aviation terminal charts (which provide pilots with the information necessary to navigate and land at a specific airport). The developer holds copyrights for portions of its charts, which use a proprietary format. The parties negotiated and executed a license and cooperation agreement under which the developer would waive its standard licensing fee and grant the software company access to proprietary products that facilitate the integration of the developer’s terminal charts into third-party systems. In exchange, the software company would create a data management reader that works in conjunction with an e-book viewer. After the execution of the agreement, the software company registered with Apple as a software application developer and requested the necessary toolkit from the developer to develop an app. The developer did not provide the toolkit. Rather, it announced it had created its own app, offered to its customers at no additional cost beyond their terminal chart subscription fee.
The software development company sued the developer. The district court granted summary judgment for developer on the antitrust claims but denied summary judgment on the remaining claims for loss of profits, awarding more than $43 million in damages. The developer appealed, challenging only the district court’s ruling related to the loss of profits. The software company cross-appealed, challenging the dismissal of its antitrust claims, alleging a single anticompetitive conduct consisting in a refusal to deal, in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act.
To determine whether a refusal to deal violates § 2, the Court of Appeals first looked at market power in the relevant market, in which the court assumed that the developer enjoyed monopoly power. Second, the Court of Appeals looked at the use of the product, and concluded that the assertion of IPRs is a presumptively rational business justification for a unilateral refusal to deal. In its legal reasoning, the Court of Appeals relied on the approach taken by both the First and Federal Circuits in Data General and Xerox, respectively. In Data General, the First Circuit held that while exclusionary conduct can be pursued by refusing to license a copyright, an author’s desire to exclude others from use of its copyrighted work is a presumptively valid business justification for any immediate harm to consumers. In Xerox, a Federal Circuit declined to examine the defendant’s motivation in asserting its right to exclude under the copyright laws, absent any evidence that the copyrights were obtained by unlawful means or used to gain monopoly power beyond what provided for by the law. Quoting Novell and Trinko, the Court of Appeals also recognized the existence of a limited exception, available only where the plaintiff can establish the parties had a preexisting, voluntary, and presumably profitable business relationship, and its discontinuation suggests a willingness to forsake short-term profits to achieve anti-competitive ends. On this last point, the Court of Appeals held that the software developer did not present any evidence.
Therefore, it concluded that the developer did not have an independent antitrust duty to share its intellectual property with the software company. Consequently, it reversed and vacated the jury’s award of lost profits, but affirmed the partial summary judgment on software company’s antitrust claims.
By Valerio Cosimo Romano
On 6 December 2016 the European Commission (the “Commission”) approved the acquisition of LinkedIn by Microsoft, conditional on compliance with a series of commitments.
Microsoft is an U.S. technology giant. LinkedIn is a company based in the US, operating a social network dedicated to professionals. The parties operate on complementary areas and have limited overlaps. In its investigation, the European Commission focused on professional social network services, customer relationship management software solutions, and online advertising services.
First, the Commission investigated whether, after the merger, Microsoft could have strengthened LinkedIn’s position by pre-installing and integrating the social network on its systems. The European watchdog came to the conclusion that such measures could significantly enhance LinkedIn’s visibility to the detriment of competitors. Second, the Commission investigated the area of customer relationship management software solutions and found that the networking service does not appear to be a must-have, and access to its database is not essential to compete on the market. The Commission therefore concluded that the transaction would not enable Microsoft to foreclose this market. Third, the Commission found that after the transaction a large amount of user data would still be available on the market. Thus, it concluded that there were few competition concerns arising from the combination of the parties’ online non-search service activities and data to be used for advertising purposes. Lastly, even though privacy concerns do not fall within the scope of EU competition law, the Commission analyzed the potential impact of data concentration on the market as a result of the merger. The European competition watchdog concluded that data privacy is an important parameter of competition between professional social networks, which could have been negatively affected by the transaction.
In order to address the competition concerns identified by the Commission, Microsoft committed to (i) ensuring that manufacturers and distributors would be free not to install the social network on Windows and allowing users to remove it from devices where pre-installed; (ii) allowing competing professional social network service providers to keep intact their current levels of interoperability with Microsoft’s products and (iii) granting them access to Microsoft’s proprietary application dedicated to software developers.
In light of these commitments, the Commission gave green light to the acquisition.
Second Circuit reverses a price-fixing cartel verdict against Chinese defendants on international comity grounds
By Valerio Cosimo Romano
On 20 September 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Appeals court”) in New York reversed a federal district court judgment in an antitrust lawsuit against two Chinese companies accused of conspiring to fix the price and output of vitamin C sold to the United States.
In 2005, several vitamin C purchasers in the United States filed suit against two Chinese companies, alleging that the defendants and their co-conspirators had established an illegal cartel with the purpose and effect of fixing prices, controlling the supply of vitamin C exported to the United States and worldwide, and inflating the prices of vitamin C in the United States and elsewhere. Defendants argued that they had acted in line with Chinese regulations on vitamin C export pricing which, in essence, requires coordination on prices and creation of a supply shortage, and that pursuant to the principle of international comity (i.e., the recognition granted by a nation within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation) the Court should have abstained from exercising jurisdiction in the case. The case went to trial, and in March 2013 a jury awarded plaintiffs approximately USD 147 million in damages and issued an injunction barring defendants from fixing the price or output of vitamin C. Defendants appealed the district court’s judgment.
Preliminarily, the appeals court determined whether Chinese law required defendants to engage in a conduct contrary to U.S. antitrust laws.
Defendants’ argument was supported by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, which filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Defendants’ motion to dismiss, confirming that it had compelled Defendants to sell the goods at industry wide-coordinated prices and export volumes, in order to assist China in its transition from a state run command economy to a market‐driven economy. Consistent with prior case law, the appeals court reaffirmed the principle that when a foreign government participates in U.S. court proceedings providing a reasonable evidentiary proffer on the construction and effect of its laws and regulations, the U.S. court is bound to defer to those statements. On that basis, the Court concluded that Chinese law required Defendants to engage in activities that amounted to U.S. antitrust violations.
Once ascertained the existence of a “true conflict” of laws between the applicable Chinese regulations and the relevant U.S. law, the Court determined whether it had to abstain from asserting jurisdiction on comity grounds.
In order to do so, it applied the Timberlane Lumber-Mannington Mills multi‐factor balancing test, which involves the analysis of: the degree of conflict with foreign law or policy; the nationality of the parties, locations or principal places of business of corporations; the relative importance of the alleged violation of conduct here as compared with conduct abroad; the extent to which enforcement by either state can be expected to achieve compliance, the availability of a remedy abroad and the pendency of litigation there; the existence of intent to harm or affect U.S. commerce and its foreseeability; the possible effect upon foreign relations if the court exercises jurisdiction and grants relief; whether a party will be placed in the position of being forced to perform an act illegal in either country or be under conflicting requirements by both countries; whether the court can make its order effective; whether an order for relief would be acceptable in this country if made by the foreign nation under similar circumstances, and lastly whether a treaty with the affected nations has addressed the issue.
Applying the test, the Court held that China’s interests outweigh the U.S. antitrust enforcement’s interests and thus that the factors counsel against exercising jurisdiction in the case. The Court further noted that Plaintiffs are not without recourse in respect to China’s export policies, since they can always resort to the executive branch, which would deal with the issue with foreign policy instruments.
Consequently, the Appeals court held that the district court had abused its discretion by not abstaining from asserting jurisdiction, and reversed the court’s order.
This judgment is an exercise of legal diplomacy aimed at balancing the enforcement of U.S. antitrust and the right to recourse for U.S. citizens on the one hand, and the recognition and deference to be granted to the legislative and governmental acts performed by sovereign states on the other hand. In fact, the complex intersection of legal, political, and economic effects stemming from the clash of legal systems mandates a prudential approach in deciding matters like this. However, sovereign self-limitation shall not be intended as a legitimization of a free riding behavior over foreign economies. Thus, its application shall be kept to a minimum in order not to impair the effectiveness of national antitrust laws.