Structural vs. Behavioral Remedies

20 April 2020
Prof. Dr. Frank Maier-Rigaud and Benjamin Loertscher

A review of the European Commission’s remedies practice across antitrust and merger cases raises important questions. Is the theory underlying the Commission’s merger remedies or antitrust remedies practices flawed? Or is the Commission’s reluctance to require structural remedies in antitrust cases, and its corresponding reluctance to accept behavioral remedies in merger cases, driven by factors other than the underlying economics of the cases?

In their article, published in the April 2020 edition of the CPI Antitrust Chronicle, NERA Managing Director Prof. Dr. Frank Maier-Rigaud and Consultant Benjamin Loertscher discuss the differences identified between merger and antitrust remedies, and the factors driving the Commission’s approach in these two areas of competition enforcement.

An excerpted chapter is posted here with permission of Competition Policy International, Inc. (CPI).