Cartels to face private lawsuits under OFT plans

Companies that break competition law could face lawsuits from trade and consumer bodies if the UK Government adopts new proposals published by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) today. The right to sue will no longer depend on action by a competition authority. The OFT also wants to change UK laws and procedures which limit the …

[Whitter]

Subjet

Is this an iPhone story in disguise?

[Steve]

One obvious outcome

There'll be more rich lawyers...

Why not take a leaf out of electoral law, to prevent trivial claims? Require anyone starting such an action to post a deposit, say £1000, or x% of claimed damages. If the trial judge considers the action to have merit, irrespective of whether the claimant wins or loses in the end, (s)he gets the deposit back. If the judge dismisses the case as having no merit, the deposit is forfeit to pay for wasted court time. If the claimant is advised by a solicitor, and loses the deposit, (s)he can even sue the solicitor for giving bad advice. Ambulance-chasing lawyers can always offer to pay the deposit themselves...

[heystoopid]

Sad

Sad , the only real reform would be if all the share or stockholders were individually responsible for paying the the fine !

for example

First offence 10% of all shares held

Second offence 20% of all shares held

Third offence 50% of all shares held

One would say after the second offence all senior staff responsible for the debacle would cease to be employable in any industry and on committing a third offence would be lucky to keep the shirts on their backs as they would be leaving the front door so fast that their assets would be reclaimed before they got down the first step toward the pavement to join the permanent unemployable queue !

As always the punishment should fit the crime !

[Anonymous Coward]

Capping

I reckon both parties in ALL court cases should be required to declare their own costs BEFORE the case is heard and the maximum payable by the losing side should automatically be limited to the LOWER of the two parties' costs.

This would put an end to Goliath companies threatening to bankrupt individuals simply by using unnecessarily expensive lawyers to present or prepare their case, thereby forcing their David opposition to settle regardless of merit.

[Mark]

@steve

But then again, when you hear the exuse for record profits "because oil has gone up, our profits have gone up" and ALL OF THEM are doing it, how come that isn't a cartel? When they ALL go up by 2p a litre, how come that isn't a cartel? Now, if going up 2p a litre left them at the same profit level, then I could understand that the cost of their materials went up by 2p. But when some of that 2p is going to increasing profit, how come they ALL went up by 2p? If there was no cartel and the cost of materials went up by 1p, then someone upping their petrol by 1.3p a litre is undercutting their competition and STILL seeing more profit. So another would undercut them by .2p and still see more profit. And so on until someone had gone 1p up to cover the increased expenses and uncercut the lot of them.

But no, all went up by 2p.

And that ISN'T a cartel?

So why should I have to post £x,000 to sue them for it?

[Anonymous Coward]

One possible result

Now you face the possibility of the winner paying the loser's court costs (as well as their own.)

[Steve]

@mark

Seeing the same effect eveywhere doesn't require any form of communications other than all reading the same newspapers, which doesn't necessarily make a cartel.

If they all plan on making x% profit and apply standard economics calculations to their business, then if their raw material goes up by 1p/litre, they'll all end up at the same retail price increase. Don't be misled by the huge numbers involved, even 0.1% difference can look huge in £/$ terms, but it isn't really.

If one decides to add 2p, and another only adds 1.5p, the only result is that the 2p one will have to drop their price by 0.5p, so they all make less profit. Once one sets a price and hangs it out on their forecourt, there's little incentive for the others to do anything but copy it, and that doesn't require any illegal joint cartel-like planning.

As to posting a deposit, if you're so sure it's a cartel you've got nothing to lose, so borrow the money or find a no-win/no-fee solictor to post it for you. If you're not sure, then don't waste the court's time and the taxpayers money.

The real problem with fuel isn't with the oil companies, it's with the government which happily collects the increased VAT and duty that comes from the increased raw material price. They could instead fix duty and tax at a set amount per litre instead of a %age, that would limit the forecourt increase.