ABSTRACT Business entities employ predatory pricing as a strategy primarily aimed at eliminating competitors. The regulation and detection of predatory pricing are complex processes, and each country adopts distinct mechanisms to address the issue. The scientific contribution of this study lies in its comparative analysis of two different legal systems—Indonesia’s civil law and the United States’ common law—in addressing predatory pricing practices under competition law. It examines how differing legal frameworks influence the methods of proof, the application of the rule of reason principle, and the pattern of sanctions imposed on business actors. In addition, this study adopts an interdisciplinary approach that integrates law and economics by elaborating on the application of the rule of reason principle through market-based economic analysis. This includes the use of the recoupment test, the price-cost test, and assessments of market share and market concentration calculations to evaluate the anti-competitive effects of low-price strategies. The primary contribution of this study lies in the integration of normative legal analysis with the examination of two concrete cases: KPPU Decision No. 03/KPPU-L/2020 (PT Conch South Kalimantan Cement) in Indonesia and Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. in the United States. In the United States, this case illustrates that although both countries apply the rule of reason approach, their legal outcomes may differ due to variations in evidentiary systems, the structure of supervisory institutions, and the emphasis placed on economic considerations within the legal process. Keywords: alleged practices, competition, predatory pricing
Oleh :
Anna Maria Tri Anggraini
