Convergence and Divergence in International Antitrust

Christine Varney’s speeches as the Assistant Attorney General, such as that in Fordham last year, and yesterday’s speech in Paris (Co-ordinated Remedies: Convergence, Co-operation and the Role of Transparency) have struck a very constructive and conciliatory tone on the issue of convergence.  Convergence between antitrust authorities, and having a coherent global system is clearly important to her, and she rightly points out that consistency will benefit both agencies and businesses.  She also appreciates the limits to convergence, noting that any agency action has to be taken in the context of their own legal systems, and with a view to protect the consumers within that agency’s geographic area. In merger control, convergence works extremely well, particularly when parties time their notifications to the different agencies so that the agencies can move forward on a case together, discussing their thinking, and co-ordinating their information gathering.  There are still some disagreements, but complete convergence is almost certainly an unattainable goal – given a complex set of facts, reasonable people can disagree on the appropriate analysis. In recent years, more concern has been expressed about (the lack of) convergence in respect of unilateral conduct.  Given the DOJ’s section 2 report published last year, disavowed by several FTC Commissioners, then disavowed by Christine Varney, and withdrawn by the DOJ this year, transatlantic convergence is not the only problem to be addressed.  There are profound differences of view within the US legal system and legal community as to the appropriate section 2 liability standards. And these are divisions within one single legal system. When you look at reducing divisions across different legal systems, the problem...