Price fixing
It is illegal for competitors to work together to fix prices rather than compete against each other. This conduct restricts competition, and can force prices up and reduce choices for consumers and other businesses.
What is price fixing?
Impact of price fixing
Signs of possible price fixing in tenders
Exceptions to price fixing
Find out more about cartels
More information
What is price fixing?
Price fixing occurs when competitors agree on pricing rather than competing against each other. In relation to price fixing, the Competition and Consumer Act refers to the ‘fixing, controlling or maintaining’ of prices. A price fixing cartel occurs when competitors make written, informal or verbal agreements or understandings on:
prices for selling or buying goods or services
minimum prices
a formula for pricing or discounting goods and services
rebates, allowances or credit terms.
Price fixing agreements do not have to be formal; they can be a 'wink and a nod', made over a drink in the local pub, at an association meeting or at a social occasion. The important point is not how the agreement or understanding was made or even how effective it is, but that competitors are working out their prices collectively and not individually.
Sometimes competing businesses will sell goods or services at the same or similar price levels so that the price fluctuations of one are matched by equivalent fluctuations by the others. Although this may seem like price fixing behaviour, it is not necessarily the result of collusive behaviour between companies.
Legitimate commercial reasons for why a business may adjust its prices to match a competitor include responding to highly visible prices displayed by competitors (e.g. petrol price boards) or competitors quickly adjusting their prices to match price movements (known as ‘parallel pricing’).
Impact of price fixing
When businesses get together to fix, control or maintain prices, it can affect consumers, as well as small businesses that rely on those suppliers for their livelihood.
Take freight for example. A lot of consumer goods are transported by freight. If the price of freight is artificially maintained or inflated by a cartel, it can affect the whole supply chain, and result in higher prices for all sorts of goods and services.
Signs of possible price fixing in tenders
Signs of price fixing may include:
tenders or quotes that are much higher than expected. This may indicate collusive pricing, or it may just be overpricing (not illegal in itself). It may simply reveal that your estimates are inaccurate. It is in your commercial interest to make enquiries and determine whether your price expectations are reasonable
all suppliers raise prices simultaneously and beyond what seems to be justified by changes in input costs. You can ask suppliers why this is so. You might also consider surveying suppliers so you are better equipped to recognise suspicious pricing movements
prices submitted are much higher than previous tenders or published price lists
tenders are missing detailed ‘workings’ to show how the tender price was calculated, where this was requested (this may indicate cover pricing)
a new supplier’s price is lower than the usual businesses tendering. This may indicate there has been collusion among the incumbent businesses tendering
prices drop markedly after a new supplier tenders. This may indicate that the existing suppliers have been colluding and the new supplier has forced them to compete.
Exceptions to price fixing
Exceptions to the prohibitions on price fixing exist for certain joint production or supply of goods or services and for certain agreements for the collective acquisition of goods or services. Agreements between related companies are also exempted. The joint venture exception is complex, and legal advice should be sought by anyone considering a joint venture that may otherwise breach the cartel provisions.
评论
就像寡头垄断了 oligopoly
评论
在国内也是犯法的
评论
一天涨一万 简直就是强盗呀 哭晕在厕所
评论
垄断市场价格犯法吗
来源：互联网整理 | 2020-06-17
在很多时候，如果我们想要垄断市场价格的话，这种行为是否是合法的？垄断价格的行为是否会受到国家法律的处罚？给我们的影响有哪些？下面，为了帮助大家更好的了解相关法律知识，律盾小编整理了以下的内容，希望对您有所帮助。
垄断市场价格犯法吗
分为横向垄断和纵向垄断，具体包括以下几点：
《反垄断法》第十三条 禁止具有竞争关系的经营者达成下列垄断协议：
(一)固定或者变更商品价格;
(二)限制商品的生产数量或者销售数量;
(三)分割销售市场或者原材料采购市场;
(四)限制购买新技术、新设备或者限制开发新技术、新产品;
(五)联合抵制交易;
(六)国务院反垄断执法机构认定的其他垄断协议。
本法所称垄断协议，是指排除、限制竞争的协议、决定或者其他协同行为。
第十四条 禁止经营者与交易相对人达成下列垄断协议：
(一)固定向第三人转售商品的价格;
(二)限定向第三人转售商品的最低价格;
(三)国务院反垄断执法机构认定的其他垄断协议。
以上内容就是相关的回答，根据国家规定，在我们国家是禁止具有竞争关系的经营者达成固定或者变更商品价格垄断协议，也同样禁止经营者与交易相对人达成这样的协议，如果您还有其他法律问题的可以咨询律盾相关律师。
评论
三大航同一天涨价，说不是约好的，谁信！
评论
在国内是不是犯法得领导说了算
评论
马云不是刚给罚了
评论
三大航接上面通知，同时涨价。领导说不是垄断就不是垄断。
评论
航空是国企，告它垄断也没用啊
评论
ACCC 能管的了国内的民航？
评论
ACCC 能管的了国内的民航？
评论
可以的，在这做生意，舅父管
评论
卖全价票， 没问题
评论
问题在同一天涨价，竞争对手商量好的涨价。
评论
充其量只是涨到了全价票而已。。。怎么管？
资本主义国家 有物价局？
评论
《反垄断法》第十三条 禁止具有竞争关系的经营者达成下列垄断协议：
(一)固定或者变更商品价格;
评论
涨价理由千万种，怎么管
评论
三家有竞争关系的航司同一天涨价，要解说不是商量好的。
评论
纯属好奇，像南航现在基本等于是空机A380飞来澳洲，然后5-6成的满座率回广州。全部都经济舱全价的话，到底有没得赚。
如果没有，那垄断法应该管不了，毕竟还亏本
评论
不是说回去基本坐满吗？
评论
单程700应该亏本
评论
最近回去坐不满，去年还行，票价高还坐的满。
评论
ACCC告过air New Zealand 不知道这个能不能告
评论
告过好多家，天价罚款
Air NZ penalised $15 million for price fixing
27 June 2018
The Federal Court has ordered Air New Zealand (Air NZ) to pay $15 million in penalties after legal action by the ACCC against a global air cargo cartel.
The Court found Air NZ made and gave effect to agreements with other airlines to fix the price of fuel and insurance surcharges on air freight services from Hong Kong, and insurance and security charges from Singapore, to various locations, including Australian airports, between 2002 and 2007.
“These illegal price fixing agreements unfairly reduced competition for the transport cost for goods flown into Australia,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.
The Court ordered Air NZ to pay a pecuniary penalty of $11.5 million for price fixing in relation to fuel surcharges imposed for cargo from Hong Kong to Australia. An additional $3.5 million penalty is payable for price fixing in relation to the insurance and security surcharge from Singapore to Australia.
“This decision sends a strong warning to overseas and domestic operators that the ACCC can and will continue to defend competition and the rights of Australian customers and businesses by taking action against anti-competitive conduct,” Ms Court said.
Since the ACCC first launched its investigation into the air cargo cartel in 2006, penalties totalling $113.5 million have been imposed against 14 airlines.
“Our efforts over the last decade and these significant penalties make clear the ACCC’s commitment to tackling cartels,” Ms Court said.
Air NZ has also agreed to pay $2 million towards the ACCC’s legal costs.
The penalty hearing against the 15th airline, PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd, was heard before Justice Perram this week. Judgment in that matter has been reserved.
Background
Competition regulators around the world have taken action in relation to the air cargo cartel, with fines or penalties ordered against various airlines in Europe, the United States, Korea, New Zealand, Canada, and India.
The ACCC commenced legal action against 15 international airlines between 2008 and 2010 under the Trade Practices Act (1974) for conduct which occurred between 2002 and 2006.
In October 2014 the Federal Court initially dismissed the ACCC’s case against Air NZ and Garuda. The ACCC appealed the decision to the Full Court of the Federal Court, which upheld the ACCC’s appeal in March 2016.
Air NZ and Garuda appealed the decision to the High Court, which last year unanimously dismissed the appeals.
So far the Federal Court has imposed penalties totalling $113.5 million in relation to 14 airlines involved in the air cargo cartel, as follows:
Carrier
Date of court order
Penalty
Qantas
Dec 2008
$20m
British Airways
Dec 2008
$5m
Air France & KLM
Feb 2009
$6m
Cargolux
Feb 2009
$5m
Martinair
Feb 2009
$5m
Japan Airlines
April 2011
$5.5m
Korean Air Lines
Nov 2011
$5.5m
Malaysian
May 2012
$6m
Emirates
Oct 2012
$10m
Cathay Pacific
Dec 2012
$11.25m
Singapore
Dec 2012
$11.75m
Thai Airways
Dec 2012
$7.5m
Air NZ
June 2018
$15m
TOTAL
$113.5m
Release number:
118/18
ACCC Infocentre:
Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries:
评论
盈利基本谈不上，因为来澳洲人数有限制，但是飞380的成本没有变，所以它只能盼着回程多拉一些人。
此外，380是每周一班，所以机组调配上成本很高，极有可能回程的机组是一周前的飞悉尼/墨尔本的。所以在澳一周的费用，南航也要承担吧。最好情况是，飞悉尼墨尔本的机组互传，但是悉尼/墨尔本的调度也是一笔费用不是。（虽然这么运营可能性不大）
评论
所以说，在亏本的情况下，南航、东航、厦航统一调价，能告得了吗？
人家说，我调价也只是保本啊。。。
评论
我觉得在一切特殊情况下，统一调价ACCC都无法告的了。更何况，造成航司调价根本原因是澳洲的政策（限制了旅客人数）所导致，调价只是为了应对，而并非勾结获利。
评论
说是三家而且是国企，其实都是一家CCP说的算…难道不是吗？别操心了
评论
听年龄大一点的澳洲人说过
Ansett 倒闭之后，Qantas乱杀国内线。
Perth飞悉尼 都是$2k
后来有了Virgin，Qantas才老实点。
所以这次Qantas打死也不让政府出手帮Virgin
澳洲中文论坛热点
- 悉尼部份城铁将封闭一年，华人区受影响！只能乘巴士（组图）
- 据《逐日电讯报》报导，从明年年中开始，因为从Bankstown和Sydenham的城铁将因Metro South West革新名目而
- 联邦政客们具有多少房产？
- 据本月早些时分报导，绿党副首领、参议员Mehreen Faruqi已获准在Port Macquarie联系其房产并建造三栋投资联