Practice question
In a non-per-se exclusivity case, the investigator assumes the market is nationwide because the respondent sells nationally. Evidence shows expensive transport limits substitution in several provinces, imminent entry may change supply, and the agreement requires investment in new facilities. The investigator considers none of that evidence and concludes that one distributor's lost sales establish the violation. What is the best criticism?
- The analysis omits market definition and the contextual, forward-looking competitive assessment required by Sections 24 and 26
- The investigator must ignore all investment requirements
- The agreement is necessarily lawful because new entry is possible
- Every national seller necessarily competes in one nationwide market
- A distributor's lost sales conclusively establish substantial harm to competition
Legal references
- RA 10667, Philippine Competition Act, Sections 4, 14–15 and 24–27: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/63120
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.