Che materia stai cercando?



1. Overview

These Guidelines outline the principal analytical techniques, practices, and the enforcement policy of

the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (the “Agencies”) with respect to

mergers and acquisitions involving actual or potential competitors (“horizontal mergers”) under the


federal antitrust laws. The relevant statutory provisions include Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15

U.S.C. § 18, Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and Section 5 of the Federal

Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. Most particularly, Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits

mergers if “in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the

country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create

a monopoly.”

The Agencies seek to identify and challenge competitively harmful mergers while avoiding

unnecessary interference with mergers that are either competitively beneficial or neutral. Most

merger analysis is necessarily predictive, requiring an assessment of what will likely happen if a

merger proceeds as compared to what will likely happen if it does not. Given this inherent need for

prediction, these Guidelines reflect the congressional intent that merger enforcement should interdict

competitive problems in their incipiency and that certainty about anticompetitive effect is seldom

possible and not required for a merger to be illegal.

These Guidelines describe the principal analytical techniques and the main types of evidence on

which the Agencies usually rely to predict whether a horizontal merger may substantially lessen

competition. They are not intended to describe how the Agencies analyze cases other than horizontal

mergers. These Guidelines are intended to assist the business community and antitrust practitioners

by increasing the transparency of the analytical process underlying the Agencies’ enforcement

decisions. They may also assist the courts in developing an appropriate framework for interpreting

and applying the antitrust laws in the horizontal merger context.

These Guidelines should be read with the awareness that merger analysis does not consist of uniform

application of a single methodology. Rather, it is a fact-specific process through which the Agencies,

guided by their extensive experience, apply a range of analytical tools to the reasonably available and

reliable evidence to evaluate competitive concerns in a limited period of time. Where these

Guidelines provide examples, they are illustrative and do not exhaust the applications of the relevant



1 These Guidelines replace the Horizontal Merger Guidelines issued in 1992, revised in 1997. They reflect the ongoing

accumulation of experience at the Agencies. The Commentary on the Horizontal Merger Guidelines issued by the

Agencies in 2006 remains a valuable supplement to these Guidelines. These Guidelines may be revised from time to

time as necessary to reflect significant changes in enforcement policy, to clarify existing policy, or to reflect new

learning. These Guidelines do not cover vertical or other types of non-horizontal acquisitions.

2 These Guidelines are not intended to describe how the Agencies will conduct the litigation of cases they decide to

bring. Although relevant in that context, these Guidelines neither dictate nor exhaust the range of evidence the

Agencies may introduce in litigation. 1

of these Guidelines is that mergers should not be permitted to create, enhance, or

The unifying theme

entrench market power or to facilitate its exercise. For simplicity of exposition, these Guidelines

generally refer to all of these effects as enhancing market power. A merger enhances market power if

it is likely to encourage one or more firms to raise price, reduce output, diminish innovation, or

otherwise harm customers as a result of diminished competitive constraints or incentives. In

evaluating how a merger will likely change a firm’s behavior, the Agencies focus primarily on how

the merger affects conduct that would be most profitable for the firm.

A merger can enhance market power simply by eliminating competition between the merging parties.

This effect can arise even if the merger causes no changes in the way other firms behave. Adverse

competitive effects arising in this manner are referred to as “unilateral effects.” A merger also can

enhance market power by increasing the risk of coordinated, accommodating, or interdependent

behavior among rivals. Adverse competitive effects arising in this manner are referred to as

“coordinated effects.” In any given case, either or both types of effects may be present, and the

distinction between them may be blurred.

These Guidelines principally describe how the Agencies analyze mergers between rival suppliers that

may enhance their market power as sellers. Enhancement of market power by sellers often elevates

the prices charged to customers. For simplicity of exposition, these Guidelines generally discuss the

analysis in terms of such price effects. Enhanced market power can also be manifested in non-price

terms and conditions that adversely affect customers, including reduced product quality, reduced

product variety, reduced service, or diminished innovation. Such non-price effects may coexist with

price effects, or can arise in their absence. When the Agencies investigate whether a merger may lead

to a substantial lessening of non-price competition, they employ an approach analogous to that used

to evaluate price competition. Enhanced market power may also make it more likely that the merged

entity can profitably and effectively engage in exclusionary conduct. Regardless of how enhanced

market power likely would be manifested, the Agencies normally evaluate mergers based on their

impact on customers. The Agencies examine effects on either or both of the direct customers and the

final consumers. The Agencies presume, absent convincing evidence to the contrary, that adverse

effects on direct customers also cause adverse effects on final consumers.

Enhancement of market power by buyers, sometimes called “monopsony power,” has adverse effects

comparable to enhancement of market power by sellers. The Agencies employ an analogous

framework to analyze mergers between rival purchasers that may enhance their market power as

buyers. See Section 12.

2. Evidence of Adverse Competitive Effects

The Agencies consider any reasonably available and reliable evidence to address the central question

of whether a merger may substantially lessen competition. This section discusses several categories

and sources of evidence that the Agencies, in their experience, have found most informative in

predicting the likely competitive effects of mergers. The list provided here is not exhaustive. In any

given case, reliable evidence may be available in only some categories or from some sources. For

each category of evidence, the Agencies consider evidence indicating that the merger may enhance

competition as well as evidence indicating that it may lessen competition.


2.1 Types of Evidence

2.1.1 Actual Effects Observed in Consummated Mergers

When evaluating a consummated merger, the ultimate issue is not only whether adverse competitive

effects have already resulted from the merger, but also whether such effects are likely to arise in the

future. Evidence of observed post-merger price increases or other changes adverse to customers is

given substantial weight. The Agencies evaluate whether such changes are anticompetitive effects

resulting from the merger, in which case they can be dispositive. However, a consummated merger

may be anticompetitive even if such effects have not yet been observed, perhaps because the merged

firm may be aware of the possibility of post-merger antitrust review and moderating its conduct.

Consequently, the Agencies also consider the same types of evidence they consider when evaluating

unconsummated mergers.

2.1.2 Direct Comparisons Based on Experience

The Agencies look for historical events, or “natural experiments,” that are informative regarding the

competitive effects of the merger. For example, the Agencies may examine the impact of recent

mergers, entry, expansion, or exit in the relevant market. Effects of analogous events in similar

markets may also be informative.

The Agencies also look for reliable evidence based on variations among similar markets. For

example, if the merging firms compete in some locales but not others, comparisons of prices charged

in regions where they do and do not compete may be informative regarding post-merger prices. In

some cases, however, prices are set on such a broad geographic basis that such comparisons are not

informative. The Agencies also may examine how prices in similar markets vary with the number of

significant competitors in those markets.

2.1.3 Market Shares and Concentration in a Relevant Market

The Agencies give weight to the merging parties’ market shares in a relevant market, the level of

concentration, and the change in concentration caused by the merger. See Sections 4 and 5. Mergers

that cause a significant increase in concentration and result in highly concentrated markets are

presumed to be likely to enhance market power, but this presumption can be rebutted by persuasive

evidence showing that the merger is unlikely to enhance market power.

2.1.4 Substantial Head-to-Head Competition

The Agencies consider whether the merging firms have been, or likely will become absent the

merger, substantial head-to-head competitors. Such evidence can be especially relevant for evaluating

adverse unilateral effects, which result directly from the loss of that competition. See Section 6. This

evidence can also inform market definition. See Section 4.

2.1.5 Disruptive Role of a Merging Party

The Agencies consider whether a merger may lessen competition by eliminating a “maverick” firm,

i.e., a firm that plays a disruptive role in the market to the benefit of customers. For example, if one

of the merging firms has a strong incumbency position and the other merging firm threatens to


disrupt market conditions with a new technology or business model, their merger can involve the loss

of actual or potential competition. Likewise, one of the merging firms may have the incentive to take

the lead in price cutting or other competitive conduct or to resist increases in industry prices. A firm

that may discipline prices based on its ability and incentive to expand production rapidly using

available capacity also can be a maverick, as can a firm that has often resisted otherwise prevailing

industry norms to cooperate on price setting or other terms of competition.

2.2 Sources of Evidence

The Agencies consider many sources of evidence in their merger analysis. The most common sources

of reasonably available and reliable evidence are the merging parties, customers, other industry

participants, and industry observers.

2.2.1 Merging Parties

The Agencies typically obtain substantial information from the merging parties. This information can

take the form of documents, testimony, or data, and can consist of descriptions of competitively

relevant conditions or reflect actual business conduct and decisions. Documents created in the normal

course are more probative than documents created as advocacy materials in merger review.

Documents describing industry conditions can be informative regarding the operation of the market

and how a firm identifies and assesses its rivals, particularly when business decisions are made in

reliance on the accuracy of those descriptions. The business decisions taken by the merging firms

also can be informative about industry conditions. For example, if a firm sets price well above

incremental cost, that normally indicates either that the firm believes its customers are not highly


sensitive to price (not in itself of antitrust concern, see Section 4.1.3 ) or that the firm and its rivals

are engaged in coordinated interaction (see Section 7). Incremental cost depends on the relevant

increment in output as well as on the time period involved, and in the case of large increments and

sustained changes in output it may include some costs that would be fixed for smaller increments of

output or shorter time periods.

Explicit or implicit evidence that the merging parties intend to raise prices, reduce output or capacity,

reduce product quality or variety, withdraw products or delay their introduction, or curtail research

and development efforts after the merger, or explicit or implicit evidence that the ability to engage in

such conduct motivated the merger, can be highly informative in evaluating the likely effects of a

merger. Likewise, the Agencies look for reliable evidence that the merger is likely to result in

efficiencies. The Agencies give careful consideration to the views of individuals whose

responsibilities, expertise, and experience relating to the issues in question provide particular indicia

of reliability. The financial terms of the transaction may also be informative regarding competitive

effects. For example, a purchase price in excess of the acquired firm’s stand-alone market value may

indicate that the acquiring firm is paying a premium because it expects to be able to reduce

competition or to achieve efficiencies.

3 High margins commonly arise for products that are significantly differentiated. Products involving substantial fixed

costs typically will be developed only if suppliers expect there to be enough differentiation to support margins

sufficient to cover those fixed costs. High margins can be consistent with incumbent firms earning competitive

returns. 4

2.2.2 Customers

can provide a variety of information to the Agencies, ranging from information about their


own purchasing behavior and choices to their views about the effects of the merger itself.

Information from customers about how they would likely respond to a price increase, and the relative

attractiveness of different products or suppliers, may be highly relevant, especially when

corroborated by other evidence such as historical purchasing patterns and practices. Customers also

can provide valuable information about the impact of historical events such as entry by a new


The conclusions of well-informed and sophisticated customers on the likely impact of the merger

itself can also help the Agencies investigate competitive effects, because customers typically feel the

consequences of both competitively beneficial and competitively harmful mergers. In evaluating such

evidence, the Agencies are mindful that customers may oppose, or favor, a merger for reasons

unrelated to the antitrust issues raised by that merger.

When some customers express concerns about the competitive effects of a merger while others view

the merger as beneficial or neutral, the Agencies take account of this divergence in using the

information provided by customers and consider the likely reasons for such divergence of views. For

example, if for regulatory reasons some customers cannot buy imported products, while others can, a

merger between domestic suppliers may harm the former customers even if it leaves the more flexible

customers unharmed. See Section 3.

When direct customers of the merging firms compete against one another in a downstream market,

their interests may not be aligned with the interests of final consumers, especially if the direct

customers expect to pass on any anticompetitive price increase. A customer that is protected from

adverse competitive effects by a long-term contract, or otherwise relatively immune from the

merger’s harmful effects, may even welcome an anticompetitive merger that provides that customer

with a competitive advantage over its downstream rivals.

Example 1: As a result of the merger, Customer C will experience a price increase for an input used in producing

its final product, raising its costs. Customer C’s rivals use this input more intensively than Customer C, and the

same price increase applied to them will raise their costs more than it raises Customer C’s costs. On balance,

Customer C may benefit from the merger even though the merger involves a substantial lessening of


2.2.3 Other Industry Participants and Observers

Suppliers, indirect customers, distributors, other industry participants, and industry analysts can also

provide information helpful to a merger inquiry. The interests of firms selling products

complementary to those offered by the merging firms often are well aligned with those of customers,

making their informed views valuable.

Information from firms that are rivals to the merging parties can help illuminate how the market

operates. The interests of rival firms often diverge from the interests of customers, since customers

normally lose, but rival firms gain, if the merged entity raises its prices. For that reason, the Agencies

do not routinely rely on the overall views of rival firms regarding the competitive effects of the


merger. However, rival firms may provide relevant facts, and even their overall views may be

instructive, especially in cases where the Agencies are concerned that the merged entity may engage

in exclusionary conduct.

Example 2: Merging Firms A and B operate in a market in which network effects are significant, implying that

any firm’s product is significantly more valuable if it commands a large market share or if it is interconnected

with others that in aggregate command such a share. Prior to the merger, they and their rivals voluntarily

interconnect with one another. The merger would create an entity with a large enough share that a strategy of

ending voluntary interconnection would have a dangerous probability of creating monopoly power in this

market. The interests of rivals and of consumers would be broadly aligned in preventing such a merger.

3. Targeted Customers and Price Discrimination

When examining possible adverse competitive effects from a merger, the Agencies consider whether

those effects vary significantly for different customers purchasing the same or similar products. Such

differential impacts are possible when sellers can discriminate, e.g., by profitably raising price to

certain targeted customers but not to others. The possibility of price discrimination influences market

definition (see Section 4), the measurement of market shares (see Section 5), and the evaluation of

competitive effects (see Sections 6 and 7).

When price discrimination is feasible, adverse competitive effects on targeted customers can arise,

even if such effects will not arise for other customers. A price increase for targeted customers may be

profitable even if a price increase for all customers would not be profitable because too many other

customers would substitute away. When discrimination is reasonably likely, the Agencies may

evaluate competitive effects separately by type of customer. The Agencies may have access to

information unavailable to customers that is relevant to evaluating whether discrimination is

reasonably likely.

For price discrimination to be feasible, two conditions typically must be met: differential pricing and

limited arbitrage.

First, the suppliers engaging in price discrimination must be able to price differently to targeted

customers than to other customers. This may involve identification of individual customers to which

different prices are offered or offering different prices to different types of customers based on

observable characteristics.

Example 3: Suppliers can distinguish large buyers from small buyers. Large buyers are more likely than small

buyers to self-supply in response to a significant price increase. The merger may lead to price discrimination

against small buyers, harming them, even if large buyers are not harmed. Such discrimination can occur even if

there is no discrete gap in size between the classes of large and small buyers.

In other cases, suppliers may be unable to distinguish among different types of customers but can

offer multiple products that sort customers based on their purchase decisions.

Second, the targeted customers must not be able to defeat the price increase of concern by arbitrage,

e.g., by purchasing indirectly from or through other customers. Arbitrage may be difficult if it would

void warranties or make service more difficult or costly for customers. Arbitrage is inherently

impossible for many services. Arbitrage between customers at different geographic locations may be


impractical due to transportation costs. Arbitrage on a modest scale may be possible but sufficiently

costly or limited that it would not deter or defeat a discriminatory pricing strategy.

4. Market Definition

When the Agencies identify a potential competitive concern with a horizontal merger, market

definition plays two roles. First, market definition helps specify the line of commerce and section of

the country in which the competitive concern arises. In any merger enforcement action, the Agencies

will normally identify one or more relevant markets in which the merger may substantially lessen

competition. Second, market definition allows the Agencies to identify market participants and

measure market shares and market concentration. See Section 5. The measurement of market shares

and market concentration is not an end in itself, but is useful to the extent it illuminates the merger’s

likely competitive effects.

The Agencies’ analysis need not start with market definition. Some of the analytical tools used by the

Agencies to assess competitive effects do not rely on market definition, although evaluation of

competitive alternatives available to customers is always necessary at some point in the analysis.

Evidence of competitive effects can inform market definition, just as market definition can be

informative regarding competitive effects. For example, evidence that a reduction in the number of

significant rivals offering a group of products causes prices for those products to rise significantly can

itself establish that those products form a relevant market. Such evidence also may more directly

predict the competitive effects of a merger, reducing the role of inferences from market definition and

market shares.

Where analysis suggests alternative and reasonably plausible candidate markets, and where the

resulting market shares lead to very different inferences regarding competitive effects, it is

particularly valuable to examine more direct forms of evidence concerning those effects.

Market definition focuses solely on demand substitution factors, i.e., on customers’ ability and

willingness to substitute away from one product to another in response to a price increase or a

corresponding non-price change such as a reduction in product quality or service. The responsive

actions of suppliers are also important in competitive analysis. They are considered in these

Guidelines in the sections addressing the identification of market participants, the measurement of

market shares, the analysis of competitive effects, and entry.

Customers often confront a range of possible substitutes for the products of the merging firms. Some

substitutes may be closer, and others more distant, either geographically or in terms of product

attributes and perceptions. Additionally, customers may assess the proximity of different products

differently. When products or suppliers in different geographic areas are substitutes for one another to

varying degrees, defining a market to include some substitutes and exclude others is inevitably a

simplification that cannot capture the full variation in the extent to which different products compete

against each other. The principles of market definition outlined below seek to make this inevitable

simplification as useful and informative as is practically possible. Relevant markets need not have

precise metes and bounds. 7

Defining a market broadly to include relatively distant product or geographic substitutes can lead to

misleading market shares. This is because the competitive significance of distant substitutes is

unlikely to be commensurate with their shares in a broad market. Although excluding more distant

substitutes from the market inevitably understates their competitive significance to some degree,

doing so often provides a more accurate indicator of the competitive effects of the merger than would

the alternative of including them and overstating their competitive significance as proportional to

their shares in an expanded market.

Example 4: Firms A and B, sellers of two leading brands of motorcycles, propose to merge. If Brand A

motorcycle prices were to rise, some buyers would substitute to Brand B, and some others would substitute to

cars. However, motorcycle buyers see Brand B motorcycles as much more similar to Brand A motorcycles than

are cars. Far more cars are sold than motorcycles. Evaluating shares in a market that includes cars would greatly

underestimate the competitive significance of Brand B motorcycles in constraining Brand A’s prices and greatly

overestimate the significance of cars.

Market shares of different products in narrowly defined markets are more likely to capture the

relative competitive significance of these products, and often more accurately reflect competition

between close substitutes. As a result, properly defined antitrust markets often exclude some

substitutes to which some customers might turn in the face of a price increase even if such substitutes

provide alternatives for those customers. However, a group of products is too narrow to constitute a

relevant market if competition from products outside that group is so ample that even the complete

elimination of competition within the group would not significantly harm either direct customers or

downstream consumers. The hypothetical monopolist test (see Section 4.1.1) is designed to ensure

that candidate markets are not overly narrow in this respect.

The Agencies implement these principles of market definition flexibly when evaluating different

possible candidate markets. Relevant antitrust markets defined according to the hypothetical

monopolist test are not always intuitive and may not align with how industry members use the term


Section 4.1 describes the principles that apply to product market definition, and gives guidance on

how the Agencies most often apply those principles. Section 4.2 describes how the same principles

apply to geographic market definition. Although discussed separately for simplicity of exposition, the

principles described in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 are combined to define a relevant market, which has both

a product and a geographic dimension. In particular, the hypothetical monopolist test is applied to a

group of products together with a geographic region to determine a relevant market.

4.1 Product Market Definition

When a product sold by one merging firm (Product A) competes against one or more products sold

by the other merging firm, the Agencies define a relevant product market around Product A to

evaluate the importance of that competition. Such a relevant product market consists of a group of

substitute products including Product A. Multiple relevant product markets may thus be identified.

4.1.1 The Hypothetical Monopolist Test

The Agencies employ the hypothetical monopolist test to evaluate whether groups of products in

candidate markets are sufficiently broad to constitute relevant antitrust markets. The Agencies use the


hypothetical monopolist test to identify a set of products that are reasonably interchangeable with a

product sold by one of the merging firms.

The hypothetical monopolist test requires that a product market contain enough substitute products so

that it could be subject to post-merger exercise of market power significantly exceeding that existing

absent the merger. Specifically, the test requires that a hypothetical profit-maximizing firm, not

subject to price regulation, that was the only present and future seller of those products (“hypothetical

monopolist”) likely would impose at least a small but significant and non-transitory increase in price

(“SSNIP”) on at least one product in the market, including at least one product sold by one of the

4 For the purpose of analyzing this issue, the terms of sale of products outside the

merging firms.

candidate market are held constant. The SSNIP is employed solely as a methodological tool for

performing the hypothetical monopolist test; it is not a tolerance level for price increases resulting

from a merger.

Groups of products may satisfy the hypothetical monopolist test without including the full range of

substitutes from which customers choose. The hypothetical monopolist test may identify a group of

products as a relevant market even if customers would substitute significantly to products outside that

group in response to a price increase.

Example 5: Products A and B are being tested as a candidate market. Each sells for $100, has an incremental

cost of $60, and sells 1200 units. For every dollar increase in the price of Product A, for any given price of

Product B, Product A loses twenty units of sales to products outside the candidate market and ten units of sales

to Product B, and likewise for Product B. Under these conditions, economic analysis shows that a hypothetical

profit-maximizing monopolist controlling Products A and B would raise both of their prices by ten percent, to

$110. Therefore, Products A and B satisfy the hypothetical monopolist test using a five percent SSNIP, and

indeed for any SSNIP size up to ten percent. This is true even though two-thirds of the sales lost by one product

when it raises its price are diverted to products outside the relevant market.

When applying the hypothetical monopolist test to define a market around a product offered by one

of the merging firms, if the market includes a second product, the Agencies will normally also

include a third product if that third product is a closer substitute for the first product than is the

second product. The third product is a closer substitute if, in response to a SSNIP on the first product,

greater revenues are diverted to the third product than to the second product.

Example 6: In Example 5, suppose that half of the unit sales lost by Product A when it raises its price are

diverted to Product C, which also has a price of $100, while one-third are diverted to Product B. Product C is a

closer substitute for Product A than is Product B. Thus Product C will normally be included in the relevant

market, even though Products A and B together satisfy the hypothetical monopolist test.

The hypothetical monopolist test ensures that markets are not defined too narrowly, but it does not

lead to a single relevant market. The Agencies may evaluate a merger in any relevant market

4 If the pricing incentives of the firms supplying the products in the candidate market differ substantially from those of

the hypothetical monopolist, for reasons other than the latter’s control over a larger group of substitutes, the Agencies

may instead employ the concept of a hypothetical profit-maximizing cartel comprised of the firms (with all their

products) that sell the products in the candidate market. This approach is most likely to be appropriate if the merging

firms sell products outside the candidate market that significantly affect their pricing incentives for products in the

candidate market. This could occur, for example, if the candidate market is one for durable equipment and the firms

selling that equipment derive substantial net revenues from selling spare parts and service for that equipment.


satisfying the test, guided by the overarching principle that the purpose of defining the market and

measuring market shares is to illuminate the evaluation of competitive effects. Because the relative

competitive significance of more distant substitutes is apt to be overstated by their share of sales,

when the Agencies rely on market shares and concentration, they usually do so in the smallest

relevant market satisfying the hypothetical monopolist test.

Example 7: In Example 4, including cars in the market will lead to misleadingly small market shares for

motorcycle producers. Unless motorcycles fail the hypothetical monopolist test, the Agencies would not include

cars in the market in analyzing this motorcycle merger.

4.1.2 Benchmark Prices and SSNIP Size

The Agencies apply the SSNIP starting from prices that would likely prevail absent the merger. If

prices are not likely to change absent the merger, these benchmark prices can reasonably be taken to

5 If prices are likely to change absent the merger, e.g.,

be the prices prevailing prior to the merger.

because of innovation or entry, the Agencies may use anticipated future prices as the benchmark for

the test. If prices might fall absent the merger due to the breakdown of pre-merger coordination, the

Agencies may use those lower prices as the benchmark for the test. In some cases, the techniques

employed by the Agencies to implement the hypothetical monopolist test focus on the difference in

incentives between pre-merger firms and the hypothetical monopolist and do not require specifying

the benchmark prices.

The SSNIP is intended to represent a “small but significant” increase in the prices charged by firms in

the candidate market for the value they contribute to the products or services used by customers. This

properly directs attention to the effects of price changes commensurate with those that might result

from a significant lessening of competition caused by the merger. This methodology is used because

normally it is possible to quantify “small but significant” adverse price effects on customers and

analyze their likely reactions, not because price effects are more important than non-price effects.

The Agencies most often use a SSNIP of five percent of the price paid by customers for the products

or services to which the merging firms contribute value. However, what constitutes a “small but

significant” increase in price, commensurate with a significant loss of competition caused by the

merger, depends upon the nature of the industry and the merging firms’ positions in it, and the

Agencies may accordingly use a price increase that is larger or smaller than five percent. Where

explicit or implicit prices for the firms’ specific contribution to value can be identified with

reasonable clarity, the Agencies may base the SSNIP on those prices.

Example 8: In a merger between two oil pipelines, the SSNIP would be based on the price charged for

transporting the oil, not on the price of the oil itself. If pipelines buy the oil at one end and sell it at the other, the

price charged for transporting the oil is implicit, equal to the difference between the price paid for oil at the input

end and the price charged for oil at the output end. The relevant product sold by the pipelines is better described

as “pipeline transportation of oil from point A to point B” than as “oil at point B.”

5 Market definition for the evaluation of non-merger antitrust concerns such as monopolization or facilitating practices

will differ in this respect if the effects resulting from the conduct of concern are already occurring at the time of

evaluation. 10

Example 9: In a merger between two firms that install computers purchased from third parties, the SSNIP would

be based on their fees, not on the price of installed computers. If these firms purchase the computers and charge

their customers one package price, the implicit installation fee is equal to the package charge to customers less

the price of the computers.

Example 10: In Example 9, suppose that the prices paid by the merging firms to purchase computers are opaque,

but account for at least ninety-five percent of the prices they charge for installed computers, with profits or

implicit fees making up five percent of those prices at most. A five percent SSNIP on the total price paid by

customers would at least double those fees or profits. Even if that would be unprofitable for a hypothetical

monopolist, a significant increase in fees might well be profitable. If the SSNIP is based on the total price paid

by customers, a lower percentage will be used.

4.1.3 Implementing the Hypothetical Monopolist Test

The hypothetical monopolist’s incentive to raise prices depends both on the extent to which

customers would likely substitute away from the products in the candidate market in response to such

a price increase and on the profit margins earned on those products. The profit margin on incremental

units is the difference between price and incremental cost on those units. The Agencies often estimate

incremental costs, for example using merging parties’ documents or data the merging parties use to

make business decisions. Incremental cost is measured over the change in output that would be

caused by the price increase under consideration.

In considering customers’ likely responses to higher prices, the Agencies take into account any

reasonably available and reliable evidence, including, but not limited to:

 how customers have shifted purchases in the past in response to relative changes in price or

other terms and conditions;

 information from buyers, including surveys, concerning how they would respond to price


 the conduct of industry participants, notably:

sellers’ business decisions or business documents indicating sellers’ informed beliefs

o concerning how customers would substitute among products in response to relative

changes in price;

industry participants’ behavior in tracking and responding to price changes by some or all

o rivals;

 objective information about product characteristics and the costs and delays of switching

products, especially switching from products in the candidate market to products outside the

candidate market;

 the percentage of sales lost by one product in the candidate market, when its price alone rises,

that is recaptured by other products in the candidate market, with a higher recapture

percentage making a price increase more profitable for the hypothetical monopolist;

 evidence from other industry participants, such as sellers of complementary products;


 legal or regulatory requirements; and

 the influence of downstream competition faced by customers in their output markets.

When the necessary data are available, the Agencies also may consider a “critical loss analysis” to

assess the extent to which it corroborates inferences drawn from the evidence noted above. Critical

loss analysis asks whether imposing at least a SSNIP on one or more products in a candidate market

would raise or lower the hypothetical monopolist’s profits. While this “breakeven” analysis differs

from the profit-maximizing analysis called for by the hypothetical monopolist test in Section 4.1.1,

merging parties sometimes present this type of analysis to the Agencies. A price increase raises

profits on sales made at the higher price, but this will be offset to the extent customers substitute

away from products in the candidate market. Critical loss analysis compares the magnitude of these

two offsetting effects resulting from the price increase. The “critical loss” is defined as the number of

lost unit sales that would leave profits unchanged. The “predicted loss” is defined as the number of

unit sales that the hypothetical monopolist is predicted to lose due to the price increase. The price

increase raises the hypothetical monopolist’s profits if the predicted loss is less than the critical loss.

The Agencies consider all of the evidence of customer substitution noted above in assessing the

predicted loss. The Agencies require that estimates of the predicted loss be consistent with that

evidence, including the pre-merger margins of products in the candidate market used to calculate the

critical loss. Unless the firms are engaging in coordinated interaction (see Section 7), high pre-merger

margins normally indicate that each firm’s product individually faces demand that is not highly


sensitive to price. Higher pre-merger margins thus indicate a smaller predicted loss as well as a

smaller critical loss. The higher the pre-merger margin, the smaller the recapture percentage

necessary for the candidate market to satisfy the hypothetical monopolist test.

Even when the evidence necessary to perform the hypothetical monopolist test quantitatively is not

available, the conceptual framework of the test provides a useful methodological tool for gathering

and analyzing evidence pertinent to customer substitution and to market definition. The Agencies

follow the hypothetical monopolist test to the extent possible given the available evidence, bearing in

mind that the ultimate goal of market definition is to help determine whether the merger may

substantially lessen competition.

4.1.4 Product Market Definition with Targeted Customers

If a hypothetical monopolist could profitably target a subset of customers for price increases, the

Agencies may identify relevant markets defined around those targeted customers, to whom a

hypothetical monopolist would profitably and separately impose at least a SSNIP. Markets to serve

targeted customers are also known as price discrimination markets. In practice, the Agencies identify

price discrimination markets only where they believe there is a realistic prospect of an adverse

competitive effect on a group of targeted customers.

Example 11: Glass containers have many uses. In response to a price increase for glass containers, some users

would substitute substantially to plastic or metal containers, but baby food manufacturers would not. If a

6 While margins are important for implementing the hypothetical monopolist test, high margins are not in themselves

of antitrust concern. 12

hypothetical monopolist could price separately and limit arbitrage, baby food manufacturers would be vulnerable

to a targeted increase in the price of glass containers. The Agencies could define a distinct market for glass

containers used to package baby food.

The Agencies also often consider markets for targeted customers when prices are individually

negotiated and suppliers have information about customers that would allow a hypothetical

monopolist to identify customers that are likely to pay a higher price for the relevant product. If

prices are negotiated individually with customers, the hypothetical monopolist test may suggest

relevant markets that are as narrow as individual customers (see also Section 6.2 on bargaining and

auctions). Nonetheless, the Agencies often define markets for groups of targeted customers, i.e., by

type of customer, rather than by individual customer. By so doing, the Agencies are able to rely on

aggregated market shares that can be more helpful in predicting the competitive effects of the merger.

4.2 Geographic Market Definition

The arena of competition affected by the merger may be geographically bounded if geography limits

some customers’ willingness or ability to substitute to some products, or some suppliers’ willingness

or ability to serve some customers. Both supplier and customer locations can affect this. The

Agencies apply the principles of market definition described here and in Section 4.1 to define a

relevant market with a geographic dimension as well as a product dimension.

The scope of geographic markets often depends on transportation costs. Other factors such as

language, regulation, tariff and non-tariff trade barriers, custom and familiarity, reputation, and

service availability may impede long-distance or international transactions. The competitive

significance of foreign firms may be assessed at various exchange rates, especially if exchange rates

have fluctuated in the recent past.

In the absence of price discrimination based on customer location, the Agencies normally define

geographic markets based on the locations of suppliers, as explained in subsection 4.2.1. In other

cases, notably if price discrimination based on customer location is feasible as is often the case when

delivered pricing is commonly used in the industry, the Agencies may define geographic markets

based on the locations of customers, as explained in subsection 4.2.2.

4.2.1 Geographic Markets Based on the Locations of Suppliers

Geographic markets based on the locations of suppliers encompass the region from which sales are

made. Geographic markets of this type often apply when customers receive goods or services at

suppliers’ locations. Competitors in the market are firms with relevant production, sales, or service

facilities in that region. Some customers who buy from these firms may be located outside the

boundaries of the geographic market.

The hypothetical monopolist test requires that a hypothetical profit-maximizing firm that was the

only present or future producer of the relevant product(s) located in the region would impose at least

a SSNIP from at least one location, including at least one location of one of the merging firms. In this

exercise the terms of sale for all products produced elsewhere are held constant. A single firm may

operate in a number of different geographic markets, even for a single product.


Example 12: The merging parties both have manufacturing plants in City X. The relevant product is expensive to

transport and suppliers price their products for pickup at their locations. Rival plants are some distance away in

City Y. A hypothetical monopolist controlling all plants in City X could profitably impose a SSNIP at these

plants. Competition from more distant plants would not defeat the price increase because supplies coming from

more distant plants require expensive transportation. The relevant geographic market is defined around the plants

in City X.

When the geographic market is defined based on supplier locations, sales made by suppliers located

in the geographic market are counted, regardless of the location of the customer making the purchase.

In considering likely reactions of customers to price increases for the relevant product(s) imposed in a

candidate geographic market, the Agencies consider any reasonably available and reliable evidence,


 how customers have shifted purchases in the past between different geographic locations in

response to relative changes in price or other terms and conditions;

 the cost and difficulty of transporting the product (or the cost and difficulty of a customer

traveling to a seller’s location), in relation to its price;

 whether suppliers need a presence near customers to provide service or support;

 evidence on whether sellers base business decisions on the prospect of customers switching

between geographic locations in response to relative changes in price or other competitive


 the costs and delays of switching from suppliers in the candidate geographic market to

suppliers outside the candidate geographic market; and

 the influence of downstream competition faced by customers in their output markets.

4.2.2 Geographic Markets Based on the Locations of Customers

When the hypothetical monopolist could discriminate based on customer location, the Agencies may

7 Geographic markets of this

define geographic markets based on the locations of targeted customers.

type often apply when suppliers deliver their products or services to customers’ locations.

Geographic markets of this type encompass the region into which sales are made. Competitors in the

market are firms that sell to customers in the specified region. Some suppliers that sell into the

relevant market may be located outside the boundaries of the geographic market.

The hypothetical monopolist test requires that a hypothetical profit-maximizing firm that was the

only present or future seller of the relevant product(s) to customers in the region would impose at

least a SSNIP on some customers in that region. A region forms a relevant geographic market if this

price increase would not be defeated by substitution away from the relevant product or by arbitrage,

7 For customers operating in multiple locations, only those customer locations within the targeted zone are included in

the market. 14

e.g., customers in the region travelling outside it to purchase the relevant product. In this exercise, the

terms of sale for products sold to all customers outside the region are held constant.

Example 13: Customers require local sales and support. Suppliers have sales and service operations in many

geographic areas and can discriminate based on customer location. The geographic market can be defined around

the locations of customers.

Example 14: Each merging firm has a single manufacturing plant and delivers the relevant product to customers

in City X and in City Y. The relevant product is expensive to transport. The merging firms’ plants are by far the

closest to City X, but no closer to City Y than are numerous rival plants. This fact pattern suggests that

customers in City X may be harmed by the merger even if customers in City Y are not. For that reason, the

Agencies consider a relevant geographic market defined around customers in City X. Such a market could be

defined even if the region around the merging firms’ plants would not be a relevant geographic market defined

based on the location of sellers because a hypothetical monopolist controlling all plants in that region would find

a SSNIP imposed on all of its customers unprofitable due to the loss of sales to customers in City Y.

When the geographic market is defined based on customer locations, sales made to those customers

are counted, regardless of the location of the supplier making those sales.

Example 15: Customers in the United States must use products approved by U.S. regulators. Foreign customers

use products not approved by U.S. regulators. The relevant product market consists of products approved by U.S.

regulators. The geographic market is defined around U.S. customers. Any sales made to U.S. customers by

foreign suppliers are included in the market, and those foreign suppliers are participants in the U.S. market even

though located outside it.

5. Market Participants, Market Shares, and Market Concentration

The Agencies normally consider measures of market shares and market concentration as part of their

evaluation of competitive effects. The Agencies evaluate market shares and concentration in

conjunction with other reasonably available and reliable evidence for the ultimate purpose of

determining whether a merger may substantially lessen competition.

Market shares can directly influence firms’ competitive incentives. For example, if a price reduction

to gain new customers would also apply to a firm’s existing customers, a firm with a large market

share may be more reluctant to implement a price reduction than one with a small share. Likewise, a

firm with a large market share may not feel pressure to reduce price even if a smaller rival does.

Market shares also can reflect firms’ capabilities. For example, a firm with a large market share may

be able to expand output rapidly by a larger absolute amount than can a small firm. Similarly, a large

market share tends to indicate low costs, an attractive product, or both.

5.1 Market Participants

All firms that currently earn revenues in the relevant market are considered market participants.

Vertically integrated firms are also included to the extent that their inclusion accurately reflects their

competitive significance. Firms not currently earning revenues in the relevant market, but that have

committed to entering the market in the near future, are also considered market participants.

Firms that are not current producers in a relevant market, but that would very likely provide rapid

supply responses with direct competitive impact in the event of a SSNIP, without incurring


significant sunk costs, are also considered market participants. These firms are termed “rapid

entrants.” Sunk costs are entry or exit costs that cannot be recovered outside the relevant market.

Entry that would take place more slowly in response to adverse competitive effects, or that requires

firms to incur significant sunk costs, is considered in Section 9.

Firms that produce the relevant product but do not sell it in the relevant geographic market may be

rapid entrants. Other things equal, such firms are most likely to be rapid entrants if they are close to

the geographic market.

Example 16: Farm A grows tomatoes halfway between Cities X and Y. Currently, it ships its tomatoes to City X

because prices there are two percent higher. Previously it has varied the destination of its shipments in response

to small price variations. Farm A would likely be a rapid entrant participant in a market for tomatoes in City Y.

Example 17: Firm B has bid multiple times to supply milk to School District S, and actually supplies milk to

schools in some adjacent areas. It has never won a bid in School District S, but is well qualified to serve that

district and has often nearly won. Firm B would be counted as a rapid entrant in a market for school milk in

School District S.

More generally, if the relevant market is defined around targeted customers, firms that produce

relevant products but do not sell them to those customers may be rapid entrants if they can easily and

rapidly begin selling to the targeted customers.

Firms that clearly possess the necessary assets to supply into the relevant market rapidly may also be

rapid entrants. In markets for relatively homogeneous goods where a supplier’s ability to compete

depends predominantly on its costs and its capacity, and not on other factors such as experience or

reputation in the relevant market, a supplier with efficient idle capacity, or readily available “swing”

capacity currently used in adjacent markets that can easily and profitably be shifted to serve the


relevant market, may be a rapid entrant. However, idle capacity may be inefficient, and capacity

used in adjacent markets may not be available, so a firm’s possession of idle or swing capacity alone

does not make that firm a rapid entrant.

5.2 Market Shares

The Agencies normally calculate market shares for all firms that currently produce products in the

relevant market, subject to the availability of data. The Agencies also calculate market shares for

other market participants if this can be done to reliably reflect their competitive significance.

Market concentration and market share data are normally based on historical evidence. However,

recent or ongoing changes in market conditions may indicate that the current market share of a

particular firm either understates or overstates the firm’s future competitive significance. The

Agencies consider reasonably predictable effects of recent or ongoing changes in market conditions

when calculating and interpreting market share data. For example, if a new technology that is

important to long-term competitive viability is available to other firms in the market, but is not

available to a particular firm, the Agencies may conclude that that firm’s historical market share

8 If this type of supply side substitution is nearly universal among the firms selling one or more of a group of products,

the Agencies may use an aggregate description of markets for those products as a matter of convenience.





205.39 KB




+1 anno fa


Materiale didattico per il corso di Economia Industriale del prof. Andrea Mantovani. Trattasi di un testo del Dipartimento di Giustizia degli Stati Uniti d'America all'interno del quale sono illustrate le principali tecniche e modalità d'intervento per la tutela della concorrenza ed il controllo della concentrazione delle attività economiche attraverso le acquisizioni e le fusioni di aziende.

Corso di laurea: Corso di laurea in economia, mercati e istituzioni
Università: Bologna - Unibo
A.A.: 2011-2012

I contenuti di questa pagina costituiscono rielaborazioni personali del Publisher Atreyu di informazioni apprese con la frequenza delle lezioni di Economia industriale e studio autonomo di eventuali libri di riferimento in preparazione dell'esame finale o della tesi. Non devono intendersi come materiale ufficiale dell'università Bologna - Unibo o del prof Mantovani Andrea.

Acquista con carta o conto PayPal

Scarica il file tutte le volte che vuoi

Paga con un conto PayPal per usufruire della garanzia Soddisfatto o rimborsato

Ti è piaciuto questo appunto? Valutalo!

Altri appunti di Economia industriale

EC 139 - 2004
Scelta del consumatore
Economia sanitaria - Appunti
Econometria - Elementi