> A key point in EU law is that "competition" is encouraged for the benefit of the consumer. US antitrust law is based on protecting smaller sellers from big on

> A key point in EU law is that "competition" is encouraged for the benefit of the consumer. US antitrust law is based on protecting smaller sellers from big ones. This is exactly backwards from most legal understanding. In US antitrust law you have to prove consumer harm, in Europe it is sufficient to prove harm to other businesses. [1] "In order to protect competition, Germany and, at least for the time being, the case law of the European Court of Justice seek to prevent an interference with the freedom to compete; the USA tend to pursue a more consumer welfare-oriented approach. The difference is of importance in a philosophical sense, less so in the day-to-day application of competition law. It can become relevant in marginal cases. Over here <Europe>, e.g., it suffices for predatory pricing that a dominant undertaking tries to eliminate a competitor with prices below cost. The competitor is protected with regard to his freedom to compete. In the USA, this does not suffice. The market has to be structured in a way that the dominant firm can recoup its losses and make the intended profit. If this is impossible, for instance because there will be immediate entry by newcomers as soon as prices are raised, the U.S. Supreme Court does not recognize the facts to support a predatory pricing claim." [1] ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/veranstaltungen/rnic/papers/WernhardMoeschel.pdf