Editing Price fixing (section)

==Legal status==
===United States===
In the United States, price fixing can be prosecuted as a criminal [[federal offense]] under Section 1 of the [[Sherman Antitrust Act]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1|title=15 U.S. Code § 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty|website=law.cornell.edu|publisher=[[Legal Information Institute]]|access-date=January 20, 2023}}</ref>

Criminal prosecutions must be handled by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]], but the [[Federal Trade Commission]] also has jurisdiction for civil antitrust violations. Many [[state attorney general|state attorneys general]] also bring [[antitrust]] cases and have antitrust offices, such as [[Virginia]], [[New York (state)|New York]], and [[California]]. Further, where price fixing is used as an artifice to defraud a U.S. government agency into paying more than market value, the U.S. attorney may proceed under the [[False Claims Act]].

Private individuals or organizations may file lawsuits for triple damages for antitrust violations and, depending on the law, recover attorneys fees and costs expended on prosecution of a case.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oag.state.ny.us/business/antitrust.html|title=About Antitrust Bureau|website=oag.state.ny.us|publisher=[[Attorney General of New York|New York State Attorney General]]|access-date=June 15, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080929184231/http://www.oag.state.ny.us/business/antitrust.html|archive-date=September 29, 2008|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="be-careful">{{cite web|url=http://apa.pmai.org/readall/antitrustlaw.html |title=Be Careful About Antitrust Law!|date=February 2000|publisher=Art Publishers Association|access-date=June 15, 2016|url-status=usurped|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927185403/http://apa.pmai.org/readall/antitrustlaw.html|archive-date=September 27, 2007}}</ref> If the case at hand also violates the [[False Claims Act of 1863]], in addition to the Sherman Act, private individuals may also bring a civil action in the name of the United States under the ''[[Qui Tam]]'' provision of The False Claims Act.

Under American law, exchanging prices among competitors can also violate the [[antitrust laws]]. That includes exchanging prices with the intent to fix prices or the exchange affecting the prices individual competitors set. Proof that competitors have shared prices can be used as part of the evidence of an illegal price fixing agreement.<ref name="be-careful"/> Experts generally advise that competitors avoid even the appearance of agreeing on price.<ref name="be-careful"/>

Since 1997, US courts have divided price fixing into two categories: vertical and horizontal maximum price fixing.<ref name="tsui">{{cite journal|title=Interstate Comparison – Use of Contribution Margin in Determination of Price Fixing|last=Tsui|first=Tat Chee|journal=Pace International Law Review Online Companion|volume=1|date=April 2011|ssrn=1839223}}</ref> Vertical price fixing includes a manufacturer's attempt to control the price of its product at retail.<ref>{{cite web|last=Sauer|first=Raymond D.|title=VERTICAL PRICE FIXING|url=http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~sauerr/classes/309/vertpfix.htm|access-date=July 9, 2013|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130708042032/http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~sauerr/classes/309/vertpfix.htm|archive-date=July 8, 2013}}</ref> In ''[[State Oil Co. v. Khan]]'',<ref>{{ussc|name=State Oil Co. v. Khan|volume=522|page=3|pin=|year=1997}}.</ref> the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that vertical price fixing is no longer considered a ''per se'' violation of the Sherman Act, but horizontal price fixing is still considered a breach of the Sherman Act. Also in 2008, the defendants of ''United States v LG Display Co.'', ''United States v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes'', and ''United States v. Sharp Corporation'', heard in the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]], agreed to pay a total sum of $585 million to settle their prosecutions for conspiring to fix prices of liquid crystal display panels. That was the second largest amount awarded under the Sherman Act in history.<ref name="tsui"/>

===Canada===
In Canada, it is an indictable criminal offence under Section 45 of the [[Competition Act]]. [[Bid rigging]] is considered a form of price fixing and is illegal in Canada (s.47 Competition Act).

===Australia===
Price fixing is illegal in Australia under the [[Competition and Consumer Act 2010]], with considerably similar prohibitions to the US and Canadian prohibitions. The Act is administered and enforced by the [[Australian Competition & Consumer Commission]]. Section 48 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) explicitly states, "A corporation shall not engage in the practise of resale price maintenance." A broader understanding of the statutory provision is in Section 96(3)of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), which broadly defines what can be resale price maintenance.

===New Zealand===
New Zealand law prohibits price fixing, among most other anti-competitive behaviours under the [[Commerce Act 1986]]. The act covers practices similar to that of US and Canadian law, and it is enforced by the [[Commerce Commission]].<ref>{{cite press release|url=http://www.comcom.govt.nz/MediaCentre/MediaReleases/2004/commissionwarnsgpsaboutpricefixing.aspx|title=Commission warns GP's about price fixing|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090416054240/http://www.comcom.govt.nz/MediaCentre/MediaReleases/2004/commissionwarnsgpsaboutpricefixing.aspx|archive-date=April 16, 2009|date=May 18, 2005|work=Release No 133|publisher=[[Commerce Commission]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0005/latest/DLM87623.html|title=Commerce Act 1986|publisher=Parliamentary Counsel Office|date=October 5, 2022|orig-date=Originally published April 28, 1986|access-date=January 20, 2023}}</ref>

===European Union===
Under the [[EU commission's leniency programme]], [[whistleblowing]] firms that co-operate with the antitrust authority see their prospective penalties either wiped out or reduced.<ref>{{cite news|first= David|last=Gow|title=Heineken and Grolsch fined for price-fixing|date=April 18, 2007|url=http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2059542,00.html|work=[[The Guardian]]|access-date=January 20, 2023|location=Brussels}}</ref>

===United Kingdom===
British competition law prohibits almost any attempt to fix prices.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/cartels-price-fixing|title=Avoid and report anti-competitive activity|publisher=[[Government of the United Kingdom]]|website=gov.uk|access-date=January 20, 2023}}</ref>

The [[Net Book Agreement]] was a public agreement between UK booksellers from 1900 to 1991 to sell new books only at the recommended retail price to protect the revenues of smaller bookshops. The agreement collapsed in 1991, when the large book chain [[Dillons Booksellers|Dillons]] began discounting books, followed by rival [[Waterstones]].<ref>{{cite book|title=The Organisation of Knowledge in Victorian Britain|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]/[[British Academy]]|year=2005|page=275|isbn=978-0197263266|doi=10.5871/bacad/9780197263266.001.0001|editor1-last=Daunton|editor1-first=Martin|editor1-link=Martin Daunton}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/07/business/the-media-business-british-book-shops-in-price-skirmishes.html|work=[[The New York Times]]|first=Suzanne|last=Cassidy|title=THE MEDIA BUSINESS; British Book Shops in Price Skirmishes|date=October 7, 1991|access-date=January 20, 2023|url-access=limited}}</ref>

However, price-fixing is still legal in the magazine and newspaper distribution industry, and sometimes in the motion picture industry.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Stevens|first=John Paul|date=April 2020|title=Price-Fixing in the Motion Picture Industry|url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1422&context=nulr|format=PDF|journal=[[Northwestern University Law Review]]|volume=114|issue=7|pages=1787–1804|access-date=January 20, 2023|issn=0029-3571}}</ref> Retailers who sell at below cover price are subject to withdrawal of supply. The [[Office of Fair Trading]] has given its approval to the ''status quo''.{{Citation needed|date=October 2015}}