Editing Predatory pricing (section)

==Examples of alleged predatory pricing==
*In ''AKZO v Commission'', AKZO were fined €10 million for abusing its dominant position in the organic peroxides market by reducing its prices to loss-making levels, preventing English firm 'ECS' from competing on the polymer market.<ref>[https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4905ac67-5a02-44a0-ae93-7724be6073b0.0002.06/DOC_2&format=PDF Case 62/86] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308110005/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar%3A4905ac67-5a02-44a0-ae93-7724be6073b0.0002.06%2FDOC_2&format=PDF |date=2021-03-08 }}, ''AKZO Chemie BV v Commission of the European Communities'' [1991] ECR I-03359, para 10</ref>
*In ''Tetra Pak v Commission'', Tetra Pak were fined €75 million for abusing its dominant position by reducing prices of non-asceptic cartons.<ref>[https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61994CJ0333&from=EN Case 333/94 P] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308132553/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61994CJ0333&from=EN |date=2021-03-08 }}, ''Tetra Pak International SA v Commission of the European Communities'' [1996] ECR I-5951, para 52</ref>
*In ''Wanadoo Interactive'', a €10.35 million fine was imposed on France Télécom's subsidiary, Wanadoo Interactive.<ref>''Wanadoo Interactive'' ([https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/38233/38233_87_1.pdf Case COMP/38.233] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308223615/https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/38233/38233_87_1.pdf |date=2021-03-08 }}) Commission decision of 16 July 2003, para 409</ref> Based on ''AKZO'', high-speed residential broadband internet services were priced at levels below AVC until August 2001, and later at around AVC but below ATC.<ref>''Wanadoo Interactive'' ([https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/38233/38233_87_1.pdf Case COMP/38.233] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308223615/https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/38233/38233_87_1.pdf |date=2021-03-08 }}) Commission decision of 16 July 2003, para 257</ref>
* In ''ACCC v Cabcharge Australia'' Ltd, Cabcharge were fined $3 million for engaging in predatory pricing conduct by supplying taxi meters that were below cost and fare schedule updates at no charge.<ref>''ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd'' [2010] FCA 1261 [34]</ref> This breached section 46(1) of the ''Trade Practices Act'' 1974. 
* In ''MCX v NSE'', the NSE abused its dominant position in the currency derivatives segment by waiving transaction and admission fees, thus preventing MCX from competing in the market.<ref>''MCX Stock Exchange Ltd v National Stock Exchange of India Ltd and Ors'', Case No. 13/2009</ref> This breached section 4 of the ''Competition Act'', 2002 and amounted to a Rs 55.5 crore penalty. 
*According to an AP article<ref>{{citation|date=September 29, 2007|publisher=Associated Press|url=http://www.kxmc.com/t/minnesota/166862.asp|title=Target matches WalMart's drug cuts; state law limits discounts|access-date=2009-03-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090426041649/http://www.kxmc.com/t/minnesota/166862.asp|archive-date=2009-04-26|url-status=dead}}</ref> a law in [[Minnesota]] forced Walmart to increase its price for a one-month supply of the prescription [[birth control pill]] Tri-Sprintec from $9.00 to $26.88.
*According to a ''New York Times'' article<ref>{{citation|date=September 9, 2000|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/09/business/09SHOP.html?ex=1137560400&en=56e96432d0a4872b&ei=5070|title=Germany Says Wal-Mart Must Raise Prices|author=Edmund L. Andrews|work=New York Times|access-date=2009-03-16|archive-date=2013-03-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130307131319/http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/09/business/09SHOP.html?ex=1137560400&en=56e96432d0a4872b&ei=5070|url-status=live}}</ref> the German government ordered [[Walmart]] to increase its prices.
*According to an ''International Herald Tribune'' article,<ref>{{citation|date=January 14, 2008|publisher=International Herald Tribune|url=http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/14/technology/amazon.php|title=Amazon.com is challenging French competition law|access-date=2009-03-16|author=Victoria Shannon|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080115045147/http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/14/technology/amazon.php|archive-date=2008-01-15}}</ref> the French government ordered [[amazon.com]] to stop offering free shipping to its customers because it violated French predatory pricing laws. After Amazon refused to obey the order, the government proceeded to fine them €1,000 per day. Amazon continued to pay the fines instead of ending its policy of offering free shipping. After a law was created explicitly banning free shipping, Amazon started charging one cent for delivery.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.france24.com/en/20140711-amazon-snubs-french-free-delivery-ban-with-1-cent-charge/|title=Amazon snubs French free delivery ban with one-cent charge|work=France 24|date=July 11, 2014|access-date=October 14, 2017|archive-date=October 14, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171014054340/http://www.france24.com/en/20140711-amazon-snubs-french-free-delivery-ban-with-1-cent-charge|url-status=live}}</ref> 
*In a period known as [[Darlington Bus War]] in [[Darlington]], [[England]], [[Stagecoach Group]] offered free bus rides to put the rival Darlington Corporation Transport out of business.{{citation needed|date=May 2015}}<span style="visibility:hidden"><ref>{{citation|author=Areeda, Phillip E|author2=Hovenkamp, Herbert|author2-link=Herbert Hovenkamp|title=Antitrust Law|pages=723–745|edition=2nd|year=2002}}</ref><ref>{{citation|author=Cabral, Luis M. B.|title=Introduction to Industrial Organisation|publisher=[[MIT Press]]|year=2000|page = 269}}</ref><ref>{{citation|author1=Jones, Alison  |author2=Sufrin, Brenda |name-list-style=amp |title=EC Competition Law|edition=3rd|publisher=[[OUP]]|year=2007|pages=443–473}}</ref><ref>{{citation |author=McGee, John |title=Predatory Price Cutting: The Standard Oil (N.J.) Case |date=April 1958 |journal=Journal of Law and Economics |volume=1 |pages=137–169 |doi=10.1086/466547 |s2cid=153539977}}</ref></span>
*Some have accused Amazon of using predatory pricing to undercut competitors such as Quidsi before offering to buy them out at low cost once their financial future had become bleak.<ref>{{Cite news|url = https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-competition-shopify-wayfair-allbirds-antitrust-11608235127|title = How Amazon Wins: By Steamrolling Rivals and Partners|newspaper = Wall Street Journal|date = 22 December 2020|last1 = Mattioli|first1 = Dana|access-date = 27 December 2020|archive-date = 27 December 2020|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20201227054529/https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-competition-shopify-wayfair-allbirds-antitrust-11608235127|url-status = live}}</ref>
*Sir Freddie Laker, founder of [[Laker Airways]], sued IATA member airlines British Airways, BCal, Pan Am, TWA, [[Lufthansa]], [[Air France]], [[Swissair]], [[KLM]], [[Scandinavian Airlines|SAS]], [[Sabena]], [[Alitalia]] and [[Union des Transports Aériens|UTA]] for conspiracy to put his airline out of business by predatory pricing. They settled out of court for [[United States dollar|US$]]50 million, with British Airways later agreeing to contribute a further $35 million. British Airways also reached a separate out-of-court agreement with Sir Freddie personally for £8 million.