Editing Rule of reason (section)

== In EU ==
A rule of reason does not exist in EU competition law (see e.g. T-11/08,<ref>{{CELEX|62008TJ0011|format=PDF|text=Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011. Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an internal combustion engine - Earlier national design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Visible features of a component part of a complex product - No different overall impression - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Articles 4, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002}}
{{ECLI|ECLI:EU:T:2011:447}}</ref> T-112/99,<ref>{{CELEX|61999TJ0112|format=PDF|text=Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 18 September 2001. Métropole télévision (M6), Suez-Lyonnaise des eaux, France Télécom and Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) v Commission of the European Communities. Actions for annulment - Competition - Pay television - Joint venture - Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) - Article 85(1) of the Treaty - Negative clearance - Ancillary restrictions - Rule of reason - Article 85(3) of the Treaty - Exemption decision - Duration.}}{{ECLI|ECLI:EU:T:2001:215}}</ref> T-49/02,<ref>{{CELEX|62002TJ0049|format=PDF|text=Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 27 July 2005. Brasserie nationale SA (anc. Brasseries Funck-Bricher et Bofferding), Brasserie Jules Simon et Cie SCS and Brasserie Battin SNC v Commission of the European Communities. Restrictive practices - Luxembourg beer market - Fines.}}{{ECLI|ECLI:EU:T:2005:298}}</ref> T-491/07,<ref>{{CELEX|62007TA0491(01)|text=Case T-491/07 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2016 — CB v Commission (Competition — Decision by an association of undertakings — Market for the issue of payment cards in France — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Pricing measures applicable to ‘new entrants’ — Membership fee, mechanism for ‘regulating the acquiring function’, and ‘dormant member “wake-up” mechanism’ — Relevant market — Restriction of competition by effect — Article 81(3) EC — Manifest errors of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Proportionality — Legal certainty)}}</ref> T-208/13,<ref>{{CELEX|62013TJ0208|format=PDF|text=Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2016. Portugal Telecom SGPS, SA v European Commission. Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Portuguese and Spanish telecommunications markets — Non-competition clause with respect to the Iberian market inserted in the contract for the acquisition by Telefónica of Portugal Telecom’s share in the Brazilian mobile telephone operator Vivo — Legal safeguard ‘to the extent permitted by law’ — Obligation to state reasons — Infringement by subject-matter — Ancillary restriction — Potential competition — Infringement by effects — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Request for examination of witnesses.}}{{ECLI|ECLI:EU:T:2016:368}}</ref> etc.).

It does, however, exist in the EU's substantive law, as developed in the European Court of Justice's ''[[Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein|Cassis de Dijon]]''-ruling.