Predatory Pricing for E-Commerce Businesses from a Business Competition Law Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i8.1438Keywords:
predatory pricing, e-commerce business, business competition law, unfair competition, dominant positionAbstract
Purpose: Predatory pricing is a business strategy where prices are cut by a lot to get rid of competitors and take over the market. With the digital economy growing so quickly, this method is becoming more and more important for e-commerce companies. The goal of this study is to look at the problem of unfair pricing in e-commerce businesses from the point of view of business competition laws.
Theoretical framework: This study will look at the problems with predatory pricing practices in E-Commerce companies and E-Commerce businesses.
Method: In this study, a conventional legal method is used, and a literature review is used to look at secondary sources of data.
Result: The results of the study show that when it comes to e-commerce in Indonesia, predatory pricing strategies like giving big discounts might help consumers right away by making prices very low. But this can make business competition unfair by causing other businesses to leave the market and stopping new businesses from coming in. Law No. 5 of 1999 forbids trading practices at a loss that hurt the public interest, especially if they are done dishonestly, against the law, or in a way that hurts business competition.
Conclusion: Because of this, predatory pricing methods like these need to be closely controlled, and anyone who feels like they've been cheated should be able to tell the right people. This group has the power to punish businesses that break the rules with administrative or criminal penalties. This ensures that the Indonesian e-commerce business ecosystem is healthy and fair.Top of Form
References
Abdulkadir, M. (2004). Law and legal research . Bandung: Citra Adtya Bakti.
Asmah. (2022). The role of business competition law in online business: A comparative study of the United Kingdom and Indonesia. Cogent Social Sciences , 8 (1), 2142398.
Barkatullah, A.H. (2018). Does self-regulation provide legal protection and security to e-commerce consumers? Electronic Commerce Research and Applications , 30 , 94-101.
Black, B., & Kraakman, R. (1996). A self-enforcing model of corporate law. Harvard Law Review , 1911-1982.
Bolton, P., Brodley, J. F., & Riordan, M. H. (1999). Predatory pricing: Strategic theory and legal policy. Geo. LJ , 88 , 2239.
Buccirossi, P. (2015). Vertical restraints on e-commerce and selective distribution. Journal of Competition Law & Economics , 11 (3), 747-773.
Carloni, F., Megregian, S.S., & Bruneau, M. (2015). The E-Commerce Sector Inquiry: Can It Stop National Competition Authorities from Adopting an Overly Restrictive Approach?. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice , 6 (9), 639-651.
Chaffey, D. (2007). E-business and E-commerce Management: Strategy, Implementation and Practice . Pearson Education.
Coppel, J. (2000). E-commerce: impacts and policy challenges.
Dunne, N. (2015). Competition law and economic regulation . Cambridge University Press.
Edlin, A.S. (2010). Predatory pricing. Berkeley Program in Law and Economics .UC Berkeley.
Feindt, S., Jeffcoate, J., & Chappell, C. (2002). Identifying success factors for rapid growth in SME e-commerce. Small business economics , 19 , 51-62.
Gadinis, S. (2008). The politics of competition in international financial regulation. Harv. Int'l LJ , 49 , 447.
Graef, I. (2019). Differentiated treatment in platform-to-business relations: EU competition law and economic dependence. Yearbook of European Law , 38 , 448-499.
Hemphill, C.S. (2000). The role of recoupment in predatory pricing analyses. Booth. L. Rev. , 53 , 1581.
Hörnle, J. (2002). E-commerce—competition: competition and e-commerce. Computer Law & Security Review , 18 (3), 155-163.
Huang, W., & Li, X. (2019). The E-commerce Law of the People's Republic of China: E-commerce platform operators liability for third-party patent infringement. Computer Law & Security Review , 35 (6), 105347.
Huang, Z., & Benyoucef, M. (2013). From e-commerce to social commerce: A close look at design features. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications , 12 (4), 246-259.
Juwana, H. (2002). An overview of Indonesia's antimonopoly law. Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev. , 1 , 185.
Khushmurodova, M., & Komil, U. (2023). Trends and Problems of Development of Electronic Commerce in the Republic of Uzbekistan. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 11(6), e1197. https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i6.1197
Laudon, K., & Traver, C. G. (2017). Ecommerce . Pearson education.
Law no. 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition.
Leslie, C.R. (2013). Predatory pricing and reimbursement. Colum. L. Rev. , 113 , 1695.
Maarif, S. (2001). Competition law and policy in Indonesia. Report for the ASEAN Competition Law Project .
Maury, M.D., & Kleiner, D.S. (2002). E-commerce, ethical commerce?. Journal of Business Ethics , 36 , 21-31.
McGee, J. S. (1980). Predatory pricing revisited. The Journal of Law and Economics , 23 (2), 289-330.
Menell, P. S. (2005). Regulating"Spyware": The Limitations of State"Laboratories" and the Case for Federal Preemption of State Unfair Competition Laws. Berkeley Technology Law Journal , 1363-1432.
Parsheera, S., Shah, A., & Bose, A. (2017). Competition issues in India's online economy.
Pitofsky, R. (2017). The political content of antitrust. In Competition Law (pp. 155-185). Routledge.
Raport, J.F., & Jaworski, B.J. (2001). eCommerce. McGraw Hill/Irwin, Singapore .
Sidak, J.G., & Teece, D.J. (2009). Dynamic competition in antitrust law. Journal of Competition Law and Economics , 5 (4), 581-631.
Sukarmi, S., & Liemanto, A. (2020). Emerging Issues of Unfair Competition in Indonesia's E-Commerce Market. Intellectual Economics , 14 (2), 36-49.
Salim, E., Ali, H., & Yulasmi. (2023). Analysis of Efforts to Encourage Increased Interest in Tourism. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 11(4), e905. https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i4.905
Sumanjeet. (2010). The state of e‐commerce laws in India: a review of the Information Technology Act. International Journal of Law and Management , 52 (4), 265-282.
Telser, L. G. (1966). Cutthroat competition and the long purse. The Journal of Law and Economics , 9 , 259-277.
Todd, P. (2017). Ecommerce Law . Taylor & Francis.
Usman, R. (2004). Business competition law in Indonesia. Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta .
VanDuzer, J. A. (2000). Assessing the Canadian law and practice on predatory pricing, price discrimination and price maintenance. Ottawa L. Rev. , 32 , 179.
Wibowo, AT, Prihartinah, TL, & Suherman, AM (2022). The future of legal regulation related to predatory pricing practice in e-commerce Implementation in Indonesia. Webology , 19 (1), 2605-2620.
Williamson, O. E. (1977). Predatory pricing: A strategic and welfare analysis. The Yale Law Journal , 87 (2), 284-340.
Wu, P., Weng, C.X.C., & Joseph, S.A. (2021). Crossing the Rubicon? The implications of RCEP on anti‐monopoly enforcement on dominant E‐commerce platforms in China. Computer Law & Security Review , 42 , 105608.
Yamey, B. S. (1972). Predatory price cutting: notes and comments. The Journal of Law and Economics , 15 (1), 129-142.
Zaid, Z. (2022). The Unicorn Is a Myth No More: A Ratio Decidendi Analysis on the First Official Predatory Pricing Case in Indonesia. Journal of Law Enforcement and Justice , 3 (1), 48-59.
Zaid, Z., Gustiyani, R., & Kirana, AH (2022). Can An Anti-Dumping Policy Be Substituted For Predatory Pricing?. AL-MANHAJ: Journal of Islamic Law and Social Institutions , 4 (2), 179-188.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms: the author(s) authorize(s) the publication of the text in the journal;
2. The author(s) ensure(s) that the contribution is original and unpublished and that it is not in the process of evaluation by another journal;
3. The journal is not responsible for the views, ideas and concepts presented in articles, and these are the sole responsibility of the author(s);
4. The publishers reserve the right to make textual adjustments and adapt texts to meet with publication standards.
5. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right to first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Atribuição NãoComercial 4.0 internacional, which allows the work to be shared with recognized authorship and initial publication in this journal.
6. Authors are allowed to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g. publish in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
7. Authors are allowed and are encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on a personal web page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this can generate positive effects, as well as increase the impact and citations of the published work (see the effect of Free Access) at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
• 8. Authors are able to use ORCID is a system of identification for authors. An ORCID identifier is unique to an individual and acts as a persistent digital identifier to ensure that authors (particularly those with relatively common names) can be distinguished and their work properly attributed.
