Editing Exclusive dealing (section)

== Case illustrating third line forcing ==
Australian Consumer & Competition Commission v Black & White Cabs (Australia) [2010]<ref>{{cite web|title=ACCC v Black & White Cabs Pty Ltd|url=https://www.australiancompetitionlaw.org/cases/2010cabs.html|access-date=January 20, 2023|date=December 14, 2010|website=accc.gov.au|publisher=[[Competition and Consumer Act 2010|Australian Competition Law]]}}</ref>

'''Facts:'''
A number of operators were required by Black and White Cabs to acquire services from Cabcharge Australia Ltd (an unrelated third party [[online payment]] transaction  business). B&W Cabs recognised that it had violated antitrust law and that the proposed relief was appropriate.

'''Held:'''
Black and white Cabs was held guilty, as they engaged in third line exclusive exclusive dealing under the Australian law s 47(6) prohibited by s 47(1) by supplying their services under the conception that the taxi-cab network has to acquire services from Cabcharge Australia Ltd , a third part unrelated business in order to have access to Black  and White Cab's services.

'''Penalties and remedies'''
Restraining B&W Cabs from providing or promising to provide, taxi booking, dispatch or other services to authorised taxi service operators, so that other products and/or services, including digital payment services, are acquired by licensed taxi service operators from any third party not associated to B&W Cabs, including Cabcharge, for a five year term.The condition of the penalty were as follows:

* that B&W Cabs create, retain and implement Trade Practices Enforcement and Education / Training Program for a three-year duration
* that B&W Cabs issue letters to all licensed taxi service operators who have purchased such services from B&W Cabs 
* B&W Cabs pay a $110,000 cash penalty. To be billed in instalments. 
* B&W Cabs spend $10,000 towards ACCC expenditures.