I Introduction

i Characteristics of the regulations on private monopolisation and unfair business practices

The Japanese regulations on dominance and monopolies come in two forms: prohibition on private monopolisation and prohibition on unfair business practices.2

Private monopolisation

The concept of 'private monopolisation' is derived from Article 2 of the US Sherman Act, and was enacted at the time of the establishment of the Antimonopoly Act (AMA) in 1947, which is based on US judicial precedents on monopolisation. Two types of conduct are prescribed – 'exclusionary conduct' and 'controlling conduct', with 'controlling conduct' being unique to Japanese competition law. There are also regulations on such conduct being committed by multiple enterprises simultaneously, although there are few actual examples of this. Private monopolisation is defined in the provisions of the AMA as follows:

The term 'private monopolisation' as used in this Act means such business activities by which any enterprise, individually or by combination, in conspiracy with other enterprises, or by any other manner, excludes or controls the business activities of other enterprises, thereby causing, contrary to the public interest, a substantial restraint of competition in any particular field of trade.3

In actual practice, the provisions against controlling-type conduct are rarely applied, and five of the six private monopolisation cases that have taken place since 2000 have been exclusionary-type cases. While the title 'private monopolisation' is used, there is in fact no need for the subject of the relevant conduct to be a private company, so nowadays this expression is essentially meaningless. There is also no requirement for the subject of the conduct to be monopolising the market in the economic sense of the term (that is, having only one seller or one buyer).

Unfair business practices

While 'unfair business practice' means a conduct that has a likelihood of impeding fair competition, and is derived from Article 5 of the US Federal Trade Commission Act, a notable feature of the provisions on such practices is that they prescribe various types of conduct.4 Essentially, while an unfair business practice is the same as private monopolisation in that the AMA regulates against anticompetitive conduct impeding the function of competition in the relevant market, it differs from private monopolisation in that the AMA also prohibits unfair business practices that have a 'likelihood' of having such an effect. There are debates over what constitutes such a likelihood, as described below.5

Market share

While with private monopolisation there are no provisions imposing requirements on a company's market share, under the Guidelines for Exclusionary Private Monopolisation under the Antimonopoly Act6 enacted by the JFTC (Private Monopolisation Guidelines), companies with a share of roughly over 50 per cent are subject to the regulations, and in actual cases to which private monopolisation has applied, the share of companies in the relevant market has been high.

For instance, from a general overview of cases since 2000, we see examples including a share of approximately 85 per cent in NIPRO,7 70 per cent and above in NTT East8 (NTT's share of fibre-optic lines in the east Japan region), 72 per cent in USEN Corporation9 (up from 68 per cent owing to an implementation of exclusionary conduct), 89 per cent in Intel 10 (up from 76 per cent, again owing to the implementation of exclusionary conduct) and approximately 99 per cent in JASRAC (managing operator for music copyright). These cases are described in more detail in Sections II and IV.

In this way, all cases of private monopolisation since 2000 have identified exclusionary conduct by companies with a market share of over 50 per cent as a violation of the prohibitions thereon. However, even companies that do not have a market share of 50 per cent or more are regulated by the rules against unfair business practices.

Exclusionary conduct and controlling conduct

In recent years, there have been a series of important Supreme Court judgments concerning exclusionary conduct, in which the concept of 'excluding the business activities of other enterprises' was defined as 'causing a clear obstruction to the business activities of a competitor, or significantly making it difficult for a competitor to enter the market, in each case through practices of an artificial nature that deviate from normal competitive methods'.11 While this definition has become generally accepted, views are divided when it comes to the actual finding of exclusionary conduct. However, there is no disputing the fact that there is no need for a company to completely expel a competitor from the market, or to bar it completely from entering it, for such conduct to be considered exclusionary. In addition, in the same judgment, a 'substantial restraint of competition' is defined as 'creating, maintaining or strengthening market power', and so is consistent with actual practice to date.

On the other hand, controlling conduct is generally defined (albeit not in a Supreme Court judgment) as 'conduct which imposes restrictions on another enterprise's decision-making concerning their business activities, and so causes them to comply with one's own wishes'.

Other matters

While a company that creates market power is essentially free to raise prices, discriminatory price raises, etc., of a kind that prevent competitors from entering the market may be caught by the regulations on private monopolisation.

There are provisions that enable measures to be taken where a market is in a situation whereby it is monopolised by a large company,12 to remove such a situation; however, these have not actually been used in practice, and it is extremely unlikely that they will be in the future, either.

ii Relationship between private monopolisation and unfair business practices

It might be difficult for readers in countries that do not have a system of dual regulations to understand the relationship between private monopolisation and unfair business practices. While the enactment of regulations on unfair business practices was (as previously mentioned) influenced by the US Federal Trade Commission Act,13 the AMA is distinct from this Act in that it has provisions on a diverse range of different types of conduct, such as:

  1. concerted refusal to supply;14
  2. discriminatory price;15
  3. unjust low prices;16
  4. resale price maintenance (RPM);17 and
  5. abuse of superior bargaining position.18

Except for RPM, the conducts above are dually regulated in the AMA and JFTC General Designations (GD), with slight differences between the regulations.19 The main types of conduct, dealt with only in the GD and often applied by the JFTC, are as follows:

  1. refusal to deal;20
  2. tie-in sales;21
  3. trading on exclusive terms;22
  4. trading on restrictive terms;23 and
  5. interferences with a competitor's transaction.24

The major difference from private monopolisation is in the extent to which there is an anticompetitive effect on the market, and for private monopolisation to be realised, there must be a 'substantial restraint of competition' in the 'relevant market'.

On the other hand, it is enough for there to be a 'likelihood of impeding fair competition' for unfair business practices. The question of to what extent a 'likelihood' there should be to satisfy this requirement is, in some cases, the most contested issue. While it also depends on the case in question, the JFTC often sets a low bar in cases to ensure that it wins, while on the other hand companies tend to set a high bar in a way that is substantially the same as a 'substantial restraint of competition'.

On this point, while the JFTC ruled in the administrative hearing decision for the Microsoft case25 that 'the quantitative or substantive effect on competition of the relevant conduct should be determined on a case-by-case basis', this became the largest point of argument in the actual case.

In many cases, if private monopolisation applies, it will also constitute one of the types of unfair business practice. On the other hand, the relationship between them is such that conduct does not necessarily constitute private monopolisation just because it is an unfair business practice.

II Year in Review

As the JFTC has tended to enforce the regulations on private monopolisation in waves, it is worth looking back at previous events to understand the current situation in Japan. There were no such cases between 1972 and 1996, and prior to 1972, there were only a few. During this period, conduct that met the requirements for private monopolisation was regulated as an unfair business practice, as they were generally understood to be at the time, for which the evidential burden was low.

From 1996 to 2009, private monopolisation was actively enforced, with one case a year on average. However, the JFTC lost the JASRAC case. JASRAC, which was the monopolistic managing operator for music copyright in Japan, was initially determined by the JFTC in 200926 to have committed a violation of private monopolisation by adopting a blanket collection method for broadcaster licensing fees, whereby it charged a fee by applying its prescribed rate to broadcasters' broadcasting business revenue as a comprehensive licence for all music managed by JASRAC, regardless of the number of times that music was actually used.

JASRAC contested the cease-and-desist order in the hearing procedure27 held by the JFTC, which resulted in the JFTC taking the highly unusual step of revoking its own cease-and-desist order of violation.28

While it seemed the matter would then be concluded, an action for revocation of administrative disposition was subsequently brought against the JFTC by JASRAC's competitor, e-License, which claimed that it was excluded by JASRAC. The Tokyo High Court and the Supreme Court both determined that exclusionary conduct had taken place, and the case was referred back to the JFTC.29

In 2016, the case finally came to a close, with the withdrawal of JASRAC's petition for redress, and during the period from 2009 to 2016, shackled as it was by its ongoing conflict with JASRAC, the JFTC did not expose any cases of private monopolisation, with the exception of one small and local case of a controlling-type private monopolisation. However, in recent years, the JFTC has become more active again. It has exposed a string of cases that are fascinating from a competition law standpoint, each described later.

On 12 December 2017, the Supreme Court, albeit in an international cartel case, indicated that even where cartel agreements are reached outside Japan, the AMA will apply where these infringe Japan's free competitive economic order. Although this is self-evident in actual practice, it makes sense that this was made explicitly clear, and it is surmised that this is also applicable to private monopolisation and unfair business practices.

On 15 March 2018, according to press reports, the JFTC conducted an on-site inspection (dawn raid) of Amazon Japan's offices on suspicion of the unfair business practice, 'abuse of superior bargaining position'. It seems that the investigation will look into Amazon Japan's conduct in demanding that its supplier companies pay the cost of a discount provided to consumers as a form of support money.

On 22 May 2018, according to press reports, the JFTC conducted an on-site inspection of Mainami Kuko Service, a company providing aviation refuelling services, on suspicion of private monopolisation (of the exclusionary type). It seems that the investigation will look into Mainami's conduct of allegedly trying to restrict the entry of competitors into the market by asking airlines it has long-term partnerships with not to use refuelling facilities provided by competitors.

On 13 June 2018, according to press reports, the JFTC conducted an on-site inspection of Nihon Medi-Physics Co, a dominant company providing cancer examination test drugs for positron emission tomography, which is effective in early detection of cancer, on suspicion of private monopolisation (of the exclusionary type). Nihon Medi-Physics Co is suspected of disrupting the entry of new entrants into the market by putting pressure on the administration developer and manufacture not to use competitors' test drugs.

On 11 July 2018, the JFTC announced it closed the investigation against Apple on the suspected violation of the AMA regarding its agreement with mobile operators. See Section IV.

On 30 December 2018, in accordance with the enactment of the Act on the Development of Related Legislation Following the Conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a scheme to resolve suspected violations against the AMA voluntarily by consent between the JFTC and the enterprise (commitment procedures) has been introduced into the AMA. See Section V.

On 12 March 2019, the cabinet passed the bill to amend the AMA, which aimed to incorporate the partially discretionary leniency system, which exempts or reduces the surcharge based on the degree of cooperation of the leniency applicant and abolishes the upper limit of the number for leniency applicants, which is currently limited to five (after dawn raids, this is limited to three). These amendments are very important, but apply only to cartels and bid riggings, not to unilateral conduct.

On 15 March 2019, after hearing procedures that took almost 10 years, the JFTC revoked its own 'cease-and-desist order' of violation against Qualcomm, which was issued in 2009. This was a highly unusual step, as in the JASRAC case mentioned above. On 28 September 2009, Qualcomm was determined by the JFTC to have committed violation of unfair business practices (trading on restrictive terms) by forcing a 'royalty-free clause' and 'non-assertion provisions clause' to mobile terminal manufacturers in the licence agreements of code-division multiple access (CDMA) intellectual property rights it owned. The JFTC evaluated in its 'cease-and-desist order' in 2009, that the manufacturers would, as a result of these clauses, lose the desire to research and develop technologies related to CDMA, etc., and, accordingly, their positions would be weakened; while on the other hand, Qualcomm would strengthen its position. However, the JFTC hearing examiner ruled that the clauses had a property similar to cross-licence agreements, and finally found that the claimants had failed to show evidence to support the existence of violation. The JFTC commissioners approved the hearing decision.

On 10 April 2019, according to press reports, the JFTC conducted on-site inspections of Rakten Travel Co, Booking.com Japan and Expedia Japan, companies providing online hotel booking websites, on suspicion of unfair business practices (forcing most-favoured nation (MFN) clauses on hotels).

On 10 April 2019, according to press reports, Amazon Japan made public that it would withdraw its measure of service point reduction system returning to consumers over 1 per cent of the purchase amount of all items at the seller's expense. After Amazon Japan initially made this measure public in February 2019, the JFTC started investigations on suspicion of abuse of superior bargaining position.

iii Market definition and market power

i Market definition

A market is defined in terms of its product scope and geographical scope. However, markets are sometimes defined very narrowly when compared to merger control, such as in terms of specific areas, services or customers.

The most noteworthy case regarding market definition is NTT East. The JFTC defined the market somewhat narrowly as 'FTTH [fibre to the home] services for detached residential properties in the East Japan region'. While the company naturally countered that the market should be defined as the broadband services market (including asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) services), the Supreme Court affirmed the JFTC's decision.30

Markets have been defined as:

  1. 'the field of supply for glass tubes in the West Japan region for which the consumers are ampoule processing companies with headquarters in the same region and the suppliers are NIPRO and processing companies', in the later NIPRO case;
  2. the 'transmission of music to retail shops in Japan' in the USEN Corporation case;
  3. 'the market for the sale of CPUs to computer manufacturers in Japan' in the Intel case; and
  4. 'the Molybdenum-99 market in Japan' in the Nordion case.

There is also debate as to whether market definition is required for unfair business practices, and the JFTC's position is to define markets as necessary on a case-by-case basis. That is to say, its basic position is that this is not necessary. However, in Microsoft, the JFTC did not shy away from defining the market, but instead defined it as the computer audiovisual technology trading market. Even for unfair business practices, it is not possible to consider the anticompetitive effect if the market is not defined, and so there are many situations where companies and the JFTC contest the point.

ii Market power

As mentioned previously, under the Private Monopolisation Guidelines a company is required to have a share of over 50 per cent in the relevant market for private monopolisation to apply.

Private monopolisation is established where such companies 'create, maintain or strengthen their market power' through either exclusionary conduct or controlling conduct. There are many cases where private monopolisation is committed by companies that already have market power, and in doing so maintain or strengthen that power. While in this sense it is rare for such companies to create market power, there are cases where, for instance, an enterprise that already has market power in another market uses that position to create new market power in another separate market; that is to say it makes use of its leverage.

In the case of unfair business practices, there is no need for the company committing the conduct to have market power, and it is enough for them to have a strong position within that market. The Guidelines Concerning Distribution Systems and Business Practices under the Antimonopoly Act31 contain safe harbour provisions whereby an enterprise is not considered to have a strong position where it has a share of 20 per cent or less in respect of some types of conduct. Whether the safe harbour provisions apply varies depending on the type of conduct that is alleged to be an unfair business practice, and the aforementioned Guidelines should be consulted accordingly.

For instance, safe harbour provisions are not available in the case of restrictions on resale prices or abuse of a superior bargaining position, and so may be violated even where the JFTC considers the company in question to have a market share of only 10 per cent. Further, the market share is dependent on the market definition, so it is important to be mindful of the fact that a company's relative market share will increase where the market is narrowly defined.

iv Abuse

While conduct constituting private monopolisation may be either exclusionary conduct or controlling conduct, the former is at the heart of such conduct, and one should also be mindful of the following: it is highly likely that the JFTC makes its decisions regarding private monopolisation not only by paying attention to the anticompetitive nature of each such conduct, but also by considering overall the strength and weakness of factors such as: (1) the company's power in the market; (2) the anticompetitive nature of the conduct in question; and (3) the effect on the relevant market, as well as the causal relationship between the three, and further, taking into account the existence or absence of any pro-competitive effects, and the extent thereof.

For point (1), the JFTC takes into account not only the company's market share itself, but also the characteristics of the market, the difference in share between the company and the player ranking second in the market, and, where necessary, the extent of excess profits, the existence of potential new entrants, brand strength and so on.

Concerning point (2), while the Supreme Court has proposed 'practices of an artificial nature which deviate from methods of normal competition', this can simply be taken to mean anticompetitiveness. The extent of the anticompetitive nature of a conduct can be taken instead to mean the extent of the deviation from normal competition based on price and quality, that is to say from competition on the merits of the relevant products or services.

The effect on the relevant market (point (3)) refers to effects such as competitors failing to enter or being delayed in entering a market, withdrawing therefrom, experiencing fluctuations in their share, or increases or decreases in customer trading.

Because points (1) to (3) act on each other, if an anticompetitive effect is quantitatively assessed and given a numerical value, the anticompetitive effect is likely determined not through a summing up of such values, but by multiplying them and subtracting any pro-competitive effects instead. Once this is understood, the following examples become easier to comprehend.

In the Private Monopolisation Guidelines, four typical examples of exclusionary conduct constituting private monopolisation are given:

  1. predatory pricing;
  2. exclusive dealing;
  3. tie-in arrangements; and
  4. refusal to deal or discriminatory conduct.

While this is a simple way to classify such conduct, a much more broad and diverse range of types of conduct can be given. Additionally, the following classification of conduct is based on the JFTC's law applied to actual cases; however, this is fluid, and dependent on the details of each case. In many cases, if private monopolisation applies, this also constitutes a type of unfair business practice. However, the converse is not true.

i Exclusionary conduct (private monopolisation)

Predatory pricing

According to the Private Monopolisation Guidelines, a price is highly likely to constitute exclusionary conduct where it is lower than the 'costs required to supply the product', which is a similar concept to average variable costs. On the other hand, where the price is lower than the total costs required to supply a product, but greater than the 'costs which does not arise if the product is not supplied', and there are no special circumstances such as that the product is being supplied over a long period of time and in high volume, there is a low possibility of such pricing constituting exclusionary conduct.

The USEN Corporation case32 is a typical example of this. USEN Corporation, which had a market-leading share in cable music broadcasting to retail offices (68 per cent, rising to 72 per cent as a result of exclusionary conduct), lowered the monthly listening fee that it charged to customers of its largest rival, Cansystem (26 per cent, decreasing to 20 per cent as a result of USEN's exclusionary conduct) as a condition of the customers switching to use its own service, and also extended its promotional campaign to those customers (whereby those monthly fees were made free) from the standard three months to six, and so was determined to have engaged in exclusionary conduct.

Margin squeeze

Margin squeeze means conduct whereby a company that does business in both an upstream market and a downstream market tries to bring the price of an upstream product close to that of a downstream product. In some cases, it is regulated as a refusal to deal.

The Supreme Court's judgment in NTT East is a typical example of this. When providing new communication services using fibre optics to detached residential properties, NTT East, which owns more than 70 per cent of the fibre-optic lines in the east Japan region, provided users with such communication services under a system whereby one person used a single fibre-optic line (central wire direct connection system). However, the fact that the usage fee for this was less than the connection fee for other communications providers, when using the same central wire direct connection system, was treated as them being excluded. While the monthly usage fee was ¥5,800, the monthly connection fee was ¥6,328.33

Exclusive dealing

In Nordion, the Canadian company Nordion, that held the majority of global production volume and a large part of the sales for Molybdenum 99 (a substance used in radiation therapy) and 100 per cent of the market share in Japan, required its Japanese business partners to purchase all of the products they required from it over the course of 10 years, and accordingly, was found to have excluded its competitors.34 This is an exclusive purchasing obligation, which is one type of exclusive dealing.


The Private Monopolisation Guidelines attempt to draw a line under whether conduct is illegal by listing a diverse range of factors, including loyalty rebates, but are unsuccessful in doing so. As such, analysis of exclusionary conduct is at a developing stage, whereby factors such as the discount aspect of rebates and pro-competitive effects are also taken into account.

A representative example of this is Intel.35 Intel, which has a larger share of the market for central processing units (CPUs) installed in computers (rising from 76 to 89 per cent as a result of exclusionary conduct), provided its business partner computer manufacturers with rebates, etcetera, on the condition that they would use Intel CPUs for 90 to 100 per cent of their computers, and would not use CPUs from Intel's competitor, AMD (with a share of 22 per cent falling to 10 per cent as a result of Intel's exclusionary conduct), for those computers that had a high production volume. Intel's conduct in causing them not to adopt the CPUs of its competitor was deemed to be exclusionary.

Mixed conduct

There are some situations in which various different types of exclusionary conduct are mixed together, or combine to form a consecutive series.

NIPRO 36 is a typical example of mixed conduct. In this case, NAIGAI Group, a business partner of NIPRO that produces and sells glass tubes for use in ampoules (and has a share of 85 per cent), began dealing in non-Japanese made glass tubes, which were competitor products to NIPRO's. To restrain the expansion of NAIGAI's dealing in such glass tubes, and with the intention of imposing sanctions on it, NIPRO raised the sale price for glass tubes to NAIGAI Group only (price discrimination); refused to accept orders placed by NAIGAI Group (refusal to deal); and required NAIGAI Group alone to provide security or to settle invoices with cash payments (abuse of superior bargaining position).

The JFTC decided that exclusionary conduct had taken place after taking into account a series of conduct by NIPRO over some four years. While NIPRO was the first case of private monopolisation in which the JFTC's findings were contested, it also alleged in the course of the hearing as a preliminary claim that NIPRO's same series of conduct also constituted unfair business practices.37

As NAIGAI Group had not decreased its dealings in imported glass tubes despite such course of conduct, NIPRO was able to exclude the imported tubes, but only slightly, and accordingly, the JFTC added an allegation of unfair business practices, which have a low evidential burden and for which it is sufficient to show that there was a 'likelihood of impeding fair competition'. Finally, the JFTC returned to its claim of private monopolisation and won its case.

Hokkaido Shimbun38 is also an interesting example of a mixed conduct case. The Hokkaido Shimbun newspaper covered the entire Hokkaido area, and had a dominant position even within newspaper sales in the Hakodate region (which is located within the Hokkaido area). Given that Hakodate Shimbun was established in the same region with the aim of publishing an evening paper, Hokkaido Shimbun both filed a trademark on title lettering that the new market entrant, Hakodate Shimbun newspaper, was likely to use, and also greatly reduced its newspaper advertising fees in the same region and put pressure on the press agency not to broadcast news to Hakodate Shimbun. It further demanded that the TV stations would not broadcast its commercials. This conduct was treated as Hakodate Shimbun being excluded.

Other examples of mixed conduct are outlined below. While these types of conduct are difficult to typify under the Private Monopolisation Guidelines, they are clear examples of exclusionary conduct.

In Japan Medical Foods Association, the Association, which exclusively carried out inspection work on medical food products (that is, it had a share of 100 per cent) through the public inspections system, colluded with Nisshin Healthcare Food Service Co, Ltd, a primary seller of food products for medical use, to construct a production and sale system that made it clearly difficult for new players to enter the market, such as requiring registration for medical food products and certification for production plants, and so was deemed to have excluded new market participants from producing and selling medical food products.39

In Pachinko machine production patent pool, 10 pachinko machine producers that held key patents on the manufacturing of such machines (and together held approximately 90 per cent of the pachinko machine market), and that had gathered their patents together and were managing them as a patent 'pool', were deemed to have committed exclusionary conduct for not granting new participants licence rights to those patents.40

In Paramount Bed, Paramount Bed placed pressure on the person at the Tokyo metropolitan government in charge of placing orders for medical-use beds (Paramount had an almost 100 per cent share of this market) to enable delivery only of beds for which Paramount Bed had utility model rights, so that competing providers could not supply other beds, and accordingly was found to have committed exclusionary conduct.41

ii Controlling conduct (private monopolisation)

There are few cases concerning controlling-type conduct; nor are there any guidelines thereon from the JFTC. An example that constitutes controlling is a company using a given investment in another company to restrict its sales areas against its wishes, and to prohibit the establishment of new factories.42Also, while there are very few examples of this (just five cases to date), cases such as the Japan Medical Foods case and the Paramount Bed case involved both exclusionary conduct and controlling conduct. Since the Toyo Seikan case, there has been only one case of controlling conduct alone – the 2015 Fukui Agricultural Cooperative case.

While Fukui Agricultural Cooperative 43 is a controlling-type case, the scale thereof was small and it was extremely local in nature.

iii Unfair business practices

Price discrimination

In Hokkaido Electric Power, the company set different fees for returning consumers that were higher than those for new consumers, and accordingly the JFTC issued a warning on suspicion of price discrimination.44

While Japanese electric power companies once tended to dominate certain areas for long periods of time, the regulations were gradually eased to accommodate new market entrants. In particular, in recent years a liberalisation of retail electricity has begun, starting with the super-high voltage field (such as for large-scale power plants), then office buildings, and finally low-voltage family retail electricity as of April 2016, with the result that the Japanese electricity retail market has become completely liberalised. The case of Hokkaido Electric Power can be positioned as occurring in the midst of the retail electricity market's shift to a competitive market.

The JFTC has made it clear to the energy industry (such as electricity and gas) that it will proactively investigate the situation going forward.


Microsoft Japan licensed its word processing software, Word, to computer manufacturers together with Excel (the spreadsheet software for which it has the leading market share) at the same time as licensing the latter, and accordingly was deemed to have engaged in 'tying'.45 Following this, Ichitaro, competitor word processing software, suffered a notable reduction in its market share.

Non-assertion provisions clause

The Microsoft case is a typical example of this. Microsoft US was found to have created an anticompetitive effect in the computer audiovisual technology market by including in its contracts for licensing Windows (its core software for PCs), original equipment manufacturer (OEM) sales provisions whereby the OEM providers entering into those contracts promised not to sue Microsoft or other OEM providers for breaches of patent infringement by Windows (non-assertion provisions), and so this conduct was found to constitute trading subject to restrictive conditions.46

In the decision, it was determined that the non-assertion provisions were extremely unreasonable given that it enabled the OEM providers' worldwide patents to be incorporated into the Windows series for free, and accordingly that there was a high probability of OEM providers losing the desire to research and develop new computer audiovisual technology.

In addition, given that the OEM providers and Microsoft are competitors in the computer audiovisual technology market, the OEM providers would, as a result of the non-assertion provisions, lose the desire to research and develop computer audiovisual technology if they had such powerful technology in their possession, and accordingly, their position would be weakened, while on the other hand, Microsoft could rapidly and widely distribute its computer audiovisual technology on a global scale by installing it within the Windows series.

Accordingly, it was determined that the non-assertion provisions had a likelihood of excluding competition in the computer audiovisual market, or causing it to stagnate, and so there was a high probability of an anticompetitive effect being extended to that market.

Breach of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms

One-Blue, LLC manages and operates the patent pool for the standard essential patents for Blu-ray disc standards. Despite declaring that it would license these under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) conditions, it did not reach an agreement with Imation Corporation, which wished to receive a licence under the FRAND conditions, and furthermore told its business partners that the Blu-ray discs produced and sold by Imation would infringe One-Blue, LLC's patent rights. Accordingly, this conduct was determined to constitute unfair interference with a competitor's transactions.47

Most-favoured nation clause

Amazon Japan was found to have included in its seller display contracts for Amazon Marketplace (its electronic shopping mall) an MFN clause that required sellers to set prices and terms and conditions for products sold by them on Amazon Marketplace at whichever were the most favourable prices and terms and conditions of the same product as sold by other sales routes, and accordingly was investigated by the JFTC on suspicion of trading subject to restrictive conditions.48 However, as Amazon Japan made a petition to the effect that it would take voluntary measures itself, and those measures, including deleting MFN clauses from the contracts and not introducing the clauses in new contracts, dispelled the suspicion, the JFTC broke off its investigation.49 It could be said that Amazon took commitment procedures in advance. In March 2018, the JFTC raided Amazon Japan on suspicion of abusing superior bargaining power, which is discussed in Section II. The case is ongoing.

Unfair interference with a competitor's transactions

DeNA is an online game platform that uses mobile phone and social network services (SNS), was ranked top in sales of SNS game software and was also in hot pursuit of its rival, Gree. DeNA planned to disrupt SNS game developers from providing software to Gree by eliminating their links to the DeNA platform when they provided software to Gree. DeNA was determined to have engaged in unfair interference with a competitor's transactions.50

Exploitative abuse (abuse of superior bargaining position)

The provisions on unfair business practices contain prohibitions on abuse of superior bargaining position that are unique to Japan. One aspect to these provisions is the traditional Japanese industrial policy of protecting small and medium-sized companies, and, while they are somewhat hard to understand in terms of pure competition law theory, the JFTC makes frequent use of these provisions, therefore making them a key part of the regulations against unfair business practices.51 It is enough for a company to have a superior bargaining position relative to its suppliers, and there is neither any need for the relevant company to have market power nor to have a strong position in the relevant market. Of course, if such elements exist, the possibility of the company being targeted by the JFTC will increase.

As such, the company is an important trading partner for suppliers; if they have a relationship with such company whereby they must accept any demand made by the company, no matter how unreasonable, the company in question will be deemed to have a superior bargaining position. Theoretically, the key factor in finding a superior bargaining position is the degree of dependence by the supplier on the transaction with the company, and the degree of dependence is generally evaluated by dividing the supplier's volume of sales to the company by the supplier's total amount of sales. However, in practice, the JFTC often finds dependency, even if the ratio is less than 5 per cent.

The rules primarily regulate against large companies, such as mass electronics retailers, supermarkets, department stores, home and convenience stores, demanding cooperation fees from their suppliers, requiring them to dispatch their employees on secondment without charge, and returning products or reducing payments therefor without due cause.

However, there are no restrictions on the types of industry that may be targeted, and in the past, there have also been cases where banks were investigated. In Mitsui Sumitomo Bank, the JFTC found that Mitsui Sumitomo Bank forcing borrowers to purchase financial products was unlawful.52

Apple case

The JFTC has been investigating Apple Inc (Apple), the ultimate parent company of Apple Japan GK (Apple Japan), in accordance with the provisions of the AMA,53 since October 2016. Apple Japan has, based on its agreements with NTT Docomo KK, KDDI KK and SoftBank KK54 (collectively, three mobile network operators (3 MNOs)), been suspected of restricting the business activities of 3 MNOs regarding the following:

  1. quantities of iPhones that 3 MNOs order from Apple Japan;
  2. telecommunication service plans that 3 MNOs offer iPhone users;
  3. iPhones that users traded in to 3 MNOs; and
  4. subsidies that 3 MNOs and others offer users purchasing iPhones.

During the investigation, Apple reported to the JFTC that it would amend a part of the agreements. The JFTC reviewed these amendments. Consequently, on 11 July 2018, the JFTC decided to close the investigation, concluding that the amendments would eliminate the suspicion of the violation mentioned above. The JFTC's evaluations are as follows.55

Apple Japan concluded iPhone agreements with, and sold iPhones to, 3 MNOs. The iPhone agreements include provisions regarding 3 MNOs' purchase and sale of iPhone products, iPhone service and support provided to users purchasing iPhones, and telecommunication services provided to users purchasing iPhones. The JFTC investigated the following provisions in the iPhone agreements.

Provisions regarding iPhone order quantities

It was seen that Apple Japan obligating an MNO to order a specific order quantity of iPhones could be a problem under the AMA if, for example, it reduces the sales opportunities of other smartphone makers. However, considering the fact that a specific order quantity was not set out in the iPhone agreements except for during a limited time period and a stipulated order quantity did not appear to oblige an MNO to order the quantity, as well as other facts, it was not recognised that Apple Japan restricted an MNO's business activities.

Apple reported to the JFTC that, when concluding a new iPhone agreement with the MNO, it would stipulate that an order quantity would be a target for the MNO and that a failure to meet an order quantity would not be a breach of contract.

Provisions regarding iPhone plans

It was seen that Apple Japan obligating an MNO to offer an iPhone plan only could be a problem under the AMA if, for example, it lessens competition on service plans among MNOs. However, considering the fact that it was possible for other service plans to be offered under the iPhone agreements and a stipulated iPhone plan had not been offered, as well as other facts, it was not recognised that Apple Japan restricted an MNO's business activities.

Apple reported to the JFTC that it would amend the iPhone agreements and abolish the provisions regarding iPhone plans.

Provisions regarding traded-in iPhones

It was seen that Apple Japan restricting an MNO of its sales of traded-in iPhones within Japan could be a problem under the AMA, if, for example, it maintains or enhances the status of Apple Japan in the smartphone market, or it maintains the sales prices of iPhones, by promoting Apple Japan's sales of iPhones. Also, it is concerned that such restriction could hinder competition between MNOs and mobile network virtual operators, which offer telecommunication services to users who possess used handsets or that sell used handsets. However, considering the fact that the provisions regarding traded-in iPhones only defined the purpose of use within Japan of traded-in iPhones for one of the 3 MNOs, as well as other facts, it was not recognised that Apple Japan restricted the domestic distribution of traded-in iPhones.

Provisions on subsidy

Subsidies provided to users purchasing smartphones is considered to lessen the substantial costs to users in purchasing smartphones and to have promoted the wide use of smartphones. However, Apple Japan obligating an MNO to provide a certain amount of subsidy could be a problem under the AMA if, for example, it lessens competition among mobile telecommunication businesses through the smooth offering of low-price and diverse service plans, by constraining the price reduction of telecommunication services and the price combination of smartphones and telecommunication services under the current situation where MNOs bundle smartphones and telecommunication services to many users.

Apple proposed, to the JFTC, to amend the iPhone agreements with 3 MNOs so that they may offer (even if users purchasing iPhones subscribed to a term contract), service plans without subsidies (alternate plans), on the condition that 3 MNOs provide clear, fair and informed choices to users in their selection of either service plans with subsidies (standard plans) or alternate plans and other conditions. Apple agreed on such amendments with 3 MNOs and then reported them to the JFTC.

Even after the implementation of the above amendments, 3 MNOs' obligation to provide subsidies to users purchasing iPhones will still partly remain. However, it will become possible for 3 MNOs to offer alternate plans to users, which will not breach the iPhone agreements with Apple Japan. However, as long as 3 MNOs' sales promotion activities of alternate plans are not hindered, it is considered that such marketing will provide users with the optimal service plan choice, promoting competition among telecommunication businesses. Considering these points, it is recognised that the amendments will eliminate the suspicion of the violation of the AMA.

v Procedure

i Overview

Investigations conducted by the JFTC consist of either an on-site investigation (dawn raid) or an order to report. While an on-site investigation is the method normally employed where there is strong suspicion of a violation, in recent years some investigations have been commenced through an order to report instead. Although at the time of commencing an investigation the JFTC gives a written notice of the suspected facts, it is common for the JFTC to describe both grounds for private monopolisation and unfair business practices, thereby investigating with the aim of finding both and proving at least one of the two, and for the applicable law to be determined mid-way through an investigation or indeed at the end thereof.

When the JFTC reaches a firm position, it will send the enterprise in question a draft of the measures to be taken, and provide the enterprise with an opportunity to refuse the allegations and view or copy evidence held by the JFTC. Formal measures, cease-and-desist orders, are then issued once this process is completed. The JFTC have broad discretion to order types of measures, which include an enterprise's resolution not to repeat the same violation, informing its customers of the violation, implementing a compliance programme, etc.56

Even where the violation has already been extinguished, the JFTC may, where it deems particularly necessary, order the enterprise, for a period of five years after the extinguishment thereof, to take such measures as are required to ensure that the relevant conduct is removed, such as disseminating notices to the effect that the offending conduct is no longer taking place.57 While there is debate over whether the JFTC can order enterprises to take structural measures such as a company split, there has been no case so far of such an order being given. Where the enterprise in question objects to measures, it may dispute them through an action for revocation of administrative order made to the Tokyo District Court.

When the JFTC cannot prove a violation, it may issue informal administrative measures in the form of a warning or alert. The JFTC also can conduct sector or industry inquiries, most of which are done with the company's voluntary cooperation. However, the JFTC have the power to order any person to appear before the JFTC, or require them to submit necessary reports, information, materials or documents for their inquiries. This power was used in 2017 in an inquiry on liquid natural gas.

The revision of the AMA in 2005 led to administrative surcharges also being levied for controlling a private monopolisation. The JFTC does not have discretion over the amount thereof, but rather surcharges are charged at a maximum of 10 per cent of the consolidated annual sales affected by the conduct for the past three years.58 Further, with the 2009 revision of the AMA, administrative surcharges came to be imposed on exclusionary private monopolisation as well. These are charged at a maximum of 6 per cent of the consolidated annual sales affected by the conduct for the past three years.59 However, to date there has been no case of an administrative surcharge being levied for private monopolisation. In addition, while criminal charges are also prescribed in respect of private monopolisation, there is no example of these having actually been imposed.

With the 2009 revision of the AMA, administrative surcharges also came to be imposed for certain types of unfair business practices (certain types enacted only in the AMA, not in the GD). The basic rate for these is 3 per cent (but 1 per cent in the case of abuse of superior bargaining position). Administrative surcharges have only been imposed for unfair business practices in the case of abuses of a superior bargaining position. While such surcharges are imposed in respect of the first instance of the conduct in violation of the prohibition on abuse of superior bargaining position, for other unfair business practices they are imposed in respect of the second instance of the offending conduct where it is repeated, within 10 years of its first violation.

In addition to this formal enforcement, the JFTC may advise on business plans when consulted by the parties. This consultation system plays a very important role in practice.60

ii Commitment procedures

The purpose of commitment procedures is to ensure the transparency of the application, as well as predictability for businesses, of the law related to commitment procedures by clarifying the policies concerning commitment procedures as much as possible.

Subjects of commitment procedures

The JFTC applies commitment procedures to the suspected violation when the JFTC recognises that it is necessary for promotion of free and fair competition. On the other hand, the following cases are not subject to commitment procedures: (1) suspected violations, such as bid rigging or price-fixing cartels (hardcore cartels); (2) cases in which an enterprise has violated the same provisions within a 10-year period; and (3) cases recognised as constituting vicious and serious suspected violations that are considered to deserve a criminal sanction.

Commitment measures

In order to ensure the restoration of competition order or that the act will not be repeated in the future, the commitment measures shall satisfy the following requirements: (1) they are sufficient for excluding the suspected violation or to confirm that the suspected violation has been excluded; and (2) they are expected to be reliably conducted.

Typical examples of commitment measures are cessation of the suspected violation, confirmation that it has ceased, notification to trading partners and others or publicising information to users and others, development of a compliance programme, amendments of contracts, transfer of business, etc., recovery of monetary value provided by trading partners and others and reporting on the state of implementation.

Other key points

Public comments

If the JFTC finds that it needs to invite opinions of third parties for commitment plans, it requests public comments regarding an overview of such.

Public announcements

After the approval of a commitment plan, the JFTC shall publicly announce a summary of the approved commitment plan, a summary of the suspected violation and other matters as necessary.

Exercise of investigatory authority after migration to commitment procedures

After the issuance of a notification of commitment procedures, the JFTC shall not, in principle, conduct any investigation, such as an on-site inspection, report order or seeking testimony of the notified enterprise.

VI Private Enforcement

i Claims for damages

A person who suffers damage as a result of private monopolisation or unfair business practices may make a claim for compensation against the offending person pursuant to Article 25 of the AMA or Article 709 of the Civil Code. In Japan, there is no system of punitive compensation for damages or triple damages, so it will only ever be possible to claim the actual amount of loss suffered.

Claims for compensation made pursuant to Article 25 of the AMA cannot be made unless the JFTC's order has been finalised,61 and in the first instance, the Tokyo District Court has exclusive jurisdiction.62 Negligence is not required to establish liability, so the party engaging in the relevant conduct cannot avoid liability on the basis that it did not act wilfully or negligently.63

On the other hand, claims for compensation made pursuant to Article 709 of the Civil Code are made based on unlawful conduct in general, and so a claim can be made regardless of whether the JFTC has made an order or not.

These two rights of claim are separate from each other, and while it is in practice unusual, it is lawful to both bring a lawsuit pursuant to Article 25 of the AMA and at the same time another pursuant to Article 709 of the Civil Code, and provided the statute of limitations has not taken effect, it is also lawful for a claimant to bring a lawsuit pursuant to Article 25 of the AMA after losing a lawsuit brought under Article 709 of the Civil Code. While the limitation period is three years in either case, the starting point for calculating that period for lawsuits brought under Article 25 of the AMA is from the time at which the JFTC's order is finalised,64 whereas for lawsuits brought under Article 709 of the Civil Code, it is 'the point in time at which the loss and the party causing that loss are known'.65

While at first sight, lawsuits brought pursuant to Article 25 of the AMA, which do not require negligence to establish liability, may seem more advantageous to the affected party, these claims are restricted to violating conduct that is identified by the JFTC, and accordingly it may not necessarily be advantageous to the affected party, inter alia, where the actual violating conduct lasts longer than as identified by the JFTC. For this reason, when one excludes cases that have been statute-barred, affected parties, as often as not, choose to make a claim for compensation pursuant to Article 709 of the Civil Code.

ii Claims for injunction

Injunction lawsuits by private persons were first introduced in 2001. In Article 24 of the AMA, it is prescribed that a person whose interests are harmed owing to unfair business practices, or that are at risk of being harmed thereby, and who clearly suffers loss as a result thereof or is likely to do so, may make a claim against the enterprise or trade association that is harming or at risk of harming its interests to have that infringement stopped or prevented. This system means that the party claiming does not have to wait for the JFTC to take enforcement measures, but can make an injunction claim in its own capacity as the harmed party. In the case of private monopolisation, the harmed party is not specified, and while this is a flaw of the legal system, as mentioned previously, in many cases private monopolisation also constitutes one of the forms of unfair business practices, so if one adjusts the legal configuration, it is in practice possible for a party harmed by private monopolisation to make an injunction claim.

While many lawsuits have been brought since the introduction of the system, there were, for a long time, no successful cases brought by claimants, with the first such case occurring 10 years after the system was introduced.

This was a case in which an enterprise that had an extremely powerful position in the dry ice market (the leading player with a share of 49 per cent) slandered its competitors to the effect that they were breaching their non-compete obligations, or repeatedly made allegations to stir up its exaggerated claim that they were not reliable suppliers, and in doing so weakened their position in the dry ice market, or tried to prevent them from entering the market altogether. In this case, it was deemed that there was 'a likelihood of impeding fair competition'.66

Following this was a case of a successful claim in the taxi industry.67

Situations where a person's interests are 'clearly harmed' include 'situations where damage arises due to conduct in violation of the Antimonopoly Act that is difficult to recover from, or where financial compensation is insufficient to remedy the situation, such as where the relevant enterprise is at risk of being expelled from the market or is being prevented from entering it as a new participant'.68

Going forward, it is expected that private court actions will become more common.

VII Future developments

Following the adoption of the commitment procedure system, after lengthy discussions, in December 2018, more flexibility for resolving cases through negotiation with the JFTC has become available. Private monopolisation and unfair business practices are subject to the commitment procedure, although cartels and bid rigging are not within the scope of the commitment.

Additionally, the term of chairman Kazuyuki Sugimoto, which was renewed in March 2018, will expire in September 2020, and it is foreseen that the JFTC will make a dash for big cases before this date.


1 Yusuke Kashiwagi is a partner at Koike & Kashiwagi Law Office.

2 While the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) translates the Japanese term fukōsei na torihiki hōhō as 'unfair trade practices', the term 'business' suits the reality of what is being referred to, and accordingly this translation is used in the chapter.

3 AMA, Article 2, Paragraph 5. While 'any particular field of trade' is the JFTC's English translation, this has the same meaning as the term 'relevant market', which is generally used globally.

4 Conduct is designated as unfair business practices by the AMA or the JFTC (AMA, Article 2, Paragraph 9, Items 1–6; JFTC General Designations (GD), Paragraphs 1–16)). The JFTC is authorised to designate additional prohibited practices by the AMA and there are two types of JFTC designations; one is a general designation, which is applicable across sectors; the other is a specific designation, which is applied to a specific sector. Three specific designations, applicable to newspapers, freight transportation and retail businesses, are enacted currently.

5 A likelihood of impeding fair competition was theoretically categorised as three 'forms' in the 1982 AMA study group report: (1) lessening free competition; (2) use of unfair methods of competition; or (3) infringing the foundation of free competition. Form 1 is a core impediment, since it has essentially the same meaning as impeding the function of competition in the relevant market; form 2 relates to a substantially special act of the AMA (the Act against unjustifiable premiums and misleading representations, which is enforced by the Consumer Affairs Agency. The Consumer Affairs Agency and the JFTC sometimes cooperate in handling misleading cases); and form 3 only relates to abuse of superior bargaining position (exploitative abuse). Additionally, the JFTC considers that the use of unfair methods of competition (form 2) must be prevalent to find a likelihood of impeding fair competition.

7 JFTC hearing decision, 5 June 2006.

8 Supreme Court judgment, 17 December 2010.

9 JFTC recommendation decision, 13 October 2004.

10 JFTC recommendation decision, 13 April 2005.

11 Judgment of the Supreme Court in the NTT East case: Supreme Court decision, 17 December 2010, Minshu Vol. 64, No. 8, p. 2,067.

12 AMA, Article 8-4.

13 Although in Japan, the only enforcing body is the JFTC.

14 AMA, Article 2(9)(i); GD, Paragraph 1.

15 AMA, Article 2(9)(ii); GD, Paragraph 3.

16 AMA, Article 2(9)(iii); GD, Paragraph 6.

17 AMA, Article 2(9)(iv).

18 AMA, Article 2(9)(v); GD, Paragraph 13.

19 For example, 'unjust low price' is defined in Article 2(9)(iii) of the AMA as follows: 'without justifiable grounds, continuously supplying goods or services at a price far below the cost incurred to supply them, thereby tending to cause difficulties to the business activities of other enterprises.' On the other hand, it is defined in Paragraph 6 of the GD as follows: 'in addition to any act falling under the provisions of Article 2, Paragraph (9), Item (iii) of the Act, unjustly supplying goods or services for a low consideration, thereby tending to cause difficulties to the business activities of other entrepreneurs.'

20 GD, Paragraph 2.

21 GD, Paragraph 10.

22 GD, Paragraph 11.

23 GD, Paragraph 12.

24 GD, Paragraph 14.

25 16 September 2008.

26 JFTC case-and-desist order, 27 February 2009.

27 The practice of which has since been abolished.

28 JFTC hearing decision, 12 June 2012.

29 Supreme Court decision, 28 April 2015, Minshu, Vol. 69, No. 3, p. 518. The ruling was as follows:

A collection method which does not take into account the amount of broadcast usage when calculating broadcasting licence fees will cause the overall amount of music usage fees borne by broadcasters to increase where they are paying music usage fees to other managing operators. Accordingly, coupled with the fact that the broadcasting usage of music is essentially interchangeable in nature, this has the effect of suppressing the usage by broadcasters of music which is managed by other managing operators, and when one takes into account that the scope of such suppression extends to almost all broadcasters, and that the continuation period thereof extends over a considerably long period of time, one should say that this method clearly has the effect of making it difficult for other managing operators to enter this market.

30 The Court stated that:

given it is clear that there actually existed consumers who prefer FTTH services in terms of the communications side, etc., regardless of the price difference with other broadband services such as ADSL, and so it can be understood that for such persons there was almost no demand substitutability as regards other broadband services, so the FTTH services market can be assessed independently as being the 'relevant market' for the purposes of Article 2, Paragraph 5 of the AMA.

32 See footnote 9.

33 The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

in the case of the conduct concerned, NTT East directly provided subscriber fibre optic equipment installed by it to its subscribers, and at the same time, when providing this equipment to other telecommunications providers with which it competed for connection purposes, made use of its position as effectively the sole supplier in the equipment connectivity market for subscriber fibre optics to set and present them with connectivity terms and conditions which those providers could not accept as reasonable in economic terms. This unilateral and one-sided act of refusal to deal and predatory pricing has an artificial nature which deviates from normal competitive methods, as seen in terms of them creating, maintaining or strengthening their own market power, and as it can be said that this had the effect of significantly making it difficult for those competitors to enter the market, this should be considered as constituting exclusionary conduct in that same market.

34 Nordion, JFTC recommendation decision, 3 September 1998.

35 See footnote 10.

36 See footnote 7.

37 Trading subject to restrictive conditions, GD, Paragraph 12.

38 JFTC recommendation decision, 28 February 2000.

39 Japan Medical Foods Association, JFTC recommendation decision, 8 May 1996.

40 Pachinko machine production patent pool, JFTC recommendation decision, 6 August 1997.

41 Paramount Bed, JFTC recommendation decision, 3 September 1998.

42 Toyo Seikan, JFTC recommendation decision, 18 September 1972.

43 16 January 2015.

44 JFTC warning, 30 June 2017.

45 GD, Paragraph 10; JFTC recommendation decision, 14 December 1998.

46 GD, Paragraph 12; JFTC hearing decision, 16 September 2008.

47 GD, Paragraph 14; JFTC press release, 18 November 2016.

48 GD, Paragraph 12.

49 JFTC press release, 1 June 2017.

50 JFTC cease-and desist order, 9 June 2011.

51 The regulation on abuse of superior bargaining position is also implemented by the Subcontract Act, the special act of the AMA. The Act applies to subcontract transactions related to the commission of manufacturing, repairing or making information-based products or providing services and only where the capital falls under the criteria in the Act. When the JFTC find a violation of the Subcontract Act, it firstly issues a recommendation. If the company does not comply, the JFTC issues a cease-and-desist order after evaluating the conduct in light of abuse of superior bargaining position.

52 JFTC recommendation decision, 26 December 2005.

53 The suspected violation of trading on restrictive terms, GD, Paragraph 12.

54 In Japan, the possession of smartphones is increasing trend, with over 60 per cent of consumers owning a smartphone. The number of smartphone shipments exceeds 30 million units per year, out of which the recent share of iPhones shipped by Apple Japan is approximately 50 per cent. SoftBank, KDDI and NTT Docomo launched the sales of iPhones in July 2008, October 2011 and September 2013, respectively.

56 The JFTC may plead to the Tokyo High Court for an emergency interim order when immediate action is necessary. The most recent plea was made in 2004.

57 Article 7, Paragraph 2 of the AMA.

58 Article 7-2, Paragraph 2 of the AMA.

59 Article 7-2, Paragraph 4 of the AMA.

60 Prior consultation system for activities of businesses, etc.; www.jftc.go.jp/en/legislation_gls/imonopoly_guidelines_files/priorconsultationsystem.pdf.

61 Article 26, Paragraph 1 of the AMA.

62 Article 85-2 of the AMA.

63 Article 25, Paragraph 2 of the AMA.

64 Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the AMA.

65 Article 724 of the Civil Code.

66 Tokyo District Court judgment. 30 March 2011.

67 Shintetsu taxi, Osaka High Court judgment, 31 October 2014, Decisions, Vol. 61, p. 260.

68 Yamato transport postal service, Tokyo High Court judgment, 29 November 2007, Decisions, Vol. 24, p. 699.