4 ms·

>Visa and Mastercard both raising fees at the same time is extremely suspect. Competitors making similar price adjustments based on seeing each other's public

by jasode 3y ago

>Visa and Mastercard both raising fees at the same time is extremely suspect. Competitors making similar price adjustments based on seeing each other's public statements and strategy is legal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_collusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_collusion Same reason that competitors' gas stations across the street from each other have the same prices. They can simply see each others' prices posted on the street signs and match them. Likewise with Apple Music being $9.99 to match Spotify's $9.99. Now they've both increased to $10.99/month. Same "legalized tacit collusion" situation happens when one leading law firm announces salary increases and other law firms immediately match it: https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/large-law-firms-rush-match-cravaths-salary-hikes-associates-2022-03-01/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/large-law-firms-... No secret agreements in hidden emails or conspiracies required. Just match the visible pricing your competitors have. The loophole is competitors can't hide prices because consumers need to know what the prices are to pay them.

LadyCailin 3y ago
But that isn’t competition. If it were competition, then apple raising their price because of greed would be a boon to Spotify, because now Spotify can say “we’re cheaper than apple, be our customer!” Whether or not this meets the legal definition today isn’t relevant, when discussing potential legislation. This is suspect behavior, unless some underlying factor changed that affects the companies, this is 100% anti-competitive behavior.
_v7gu 3y ago
Tacit collusion is legal only if they are no plus factors: > Courts have held that no violation of the antitrust laws occurs where firms independently raise or lower prices, but that a violation can be shown when plus factors occur, such as firms being motivated to collude and taking actions against their own economic self-interests. It is not as clear-cut you are making it seem and collusion even when tacit is highly anti-competitive.

by jasode 3y ago

LadyCailin 3y ago

But that isn’t competition. If it were competition, then apple raising their price because of greed would be a boon to Spotify, because now Spotify can say “we’re cheaper than apple, be our customer!” Whether or not this meets the legal definition today isn’t relevant, when discussing potential legislation. This is suspect behavior, unless some underlying factor changed that affects the companies, this is 100% anti-competitive behavior.

_v7gu 3y ago

Tacit collusion is legal only if they are no plus factors: > Courts have held that no violation of the antitrust laws occurs where firms independently raise or lower prices, but that a violation can be shown when plus factors occur, such as firms being motivated to collude and taking actions against their own economic self-interests. It is not as clear-cut you are making it seem and collusion even when tacit is highly anti-competitive.