Abstract

I consider the lessons that can be drawn from economics and the recent Court of Appeal (CoA) judgment in Pfizer/Flynn for future excessive pricing cases under TFEU Article 102. In future, defendants will ask their economic experts to develop reliable evidence under both limbs of the United Brands test. The required economic analysis will involve developing a suitable price benchmark, describing what prices would have been under ‘normal and sufficiently competitive’ conditions. The benchmark can be based on various types of evidence including cost-plus and/or comparator evidence. The CoA highlights that the cellophane fallacy is a legitimate concern for competition agencies. They also accept the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT’)s conclusion that ‘some’ economic value might be relevant beyond the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA’)s cost-plus benchmark—without being prescriptive about whether or indeed how a competition agency should further take it into account. I provide a suggestion for doing so. Finally, I note that economists consider that competitive markets can result in economically efficient market outcomes but these can be consistent with high degrees of inequality. As a result, a competitive benchmark in excessive pricing cases will necessarily involve Article 102 only taking fairness into account to a limited extent.

中文翻译：

---

辉瑞/弗林在经济学和上诉法院的判决中为未来的定价过高案例提供了经验教训†

摘要

我认为可以从经济学和辉瑞/弗林最近的上诉法院（CoA）判决中吸取教训针对TFEU第102条规定的未来定价过高的案件。将来，被告将要求其经济专家在“联合品牌”测试的两个方面提出可靠的证据。所需的经济分析将涉及制定合适的价格基准，描述在“正常且具有足够竞争力”的条件下的价格。基准可以基于各种类型的证据，包括成本加成和/或比较者证据。CoA强调，玻璃纸谬论是竞争机构的合理关注。他们还接受竞争上诉法庭（CAT）的结论，即“某些”经济价值可能超出了竞争与市场管理局（CMA）的成本加成基准，而并没有规定竞争机构应否或实际上应如何规定进一步考虑到这一点。我提供了这样做的建议。最后，我指出，经济学家认为竞争性市场可以带来经济上有效的市场结果，但这些结果可能与高度的不平等现象相吻合。因此，在定价过高的情况下，竞争基准必定会涉及第102条，而只是在有限的范围内考虑了公平性。我注意到，经济学家认为竞争性市场可以带来经济上有效的市场结果，但这些结果可能与高度的不平等现象相吻合。因此，在定价过高的情况下，竞争基准必定会涉及第102条，而只是在有限的范围内考虑了公平性。我注意到，经济学家认为竞争性市场可以带来经济上有效的市场结果，但这些结果可能与高度的不平等现象相吻合。因此，在定价过高的情况下，竞争基准必定会涉及第102条，而只是在有限的范围内考虑了公平性。