One of the most unexplained areas of cartel and abuse legislation is the obligation of a monopoly to treat its competitors. As a general rule, a company is not required to treat its competitors. Indeed, a company`s obligation to do business with its competitors is at odds with other cartel and abuse rules that prevent agreements between competitors that could unduly restrict competition. However, in certain circumstances, the courts have established liability for cartels and abuse of dominance when a company with market power refuses to do business with a competitor. For example, if the monopoly refuses to sell a product or service to a competitor it makes available to others, or if the monopoly has done business with the competitor and stops, the monopoly needs a legitimate business reason for its policy. The courts will develop the law in this area. A refusal to enter into a business is a violation of cartel and abuse of dominance legislation, as it harms the boycotted company by cutting it off from a facility, product offer or market. By harming boycotted activities, competing companies control or monopolize the market by unduly limiting competition. In general, any company, including a monopoly, can choose its business partners. However, in certain circumstances, this freedom may be limited for a company with market power.
As the courts attempt to define these limited situations in which a company with market power may break the rules of cartels and abuse of dominance by refusing to do business with other firms, the focus is on how the refusal to do business helps the monopoly maintain its monopoly or allows the monopoly to use its monopoly in one market to try to monopolize another market. A refusal to do business may be an agreement between competing companies to boycott another company by refusing to do business with them, or the use of a coercion to deter a person or company from doing business with another company. A refusal of the agreement may be against another competitor; For example, if a company refuses to make transactions with another company, customer or supplier, unless it is a termination of activity with another company, the agreement would be a business refusal. In addition, the courts have found that there is a refusal of business when companies refuse to conduct transactions with a competitor when that refusal inconsistently restricts competition. If necessary, the Commissioner will begin discussions to ensure voluntary compliance. A more formal solution would involve the registration of an approval agreement with the competition tribunal. If voluntary compliance is not possible, the Commissioner may apply to the Court of Justice for compensation.