How we prioritise our competition enforcement efforts
We have a responsibility to use our resources as efficiently as possible. That is why we need to prioritise between our various competition enforcement cases. We focus on investigating issues that are of a general interest and that lead to clear results.
On this page you can see how we prioritise our competition enforcement efforts. We have a prioritisation policy that is used in the initial prioritisation, when we select which issues to investigate further. Various circumstances are then weighed against each other. Not all the factors that we consider in the prioritisation process must be fulfilled; this is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Continuous assessment
Although the prioritisation policy is initially applied, throughout the investigation we also continuously assess whether investigation of the case should continue. The number of other investigations underway and their scope may influence a prioritisation decision. However, resource limitations do not prevent us from intervening against serious violations.
Purpose
We focus on investigating issues that are of a general interest and that lead to clear results. The aim is always to promote effective competition in private and public activities for the benefit of consumers.
Factors we consider
In the choice between multiple cases that fulfil one of the grounds for prioritisation below, harm to competition and consumers is the priority factor that is ascribed the greatest weight. If we see signs of serious harm, priority will always be given to the issue, provided that we see a viable way of investigating and intervening to address the problem with the support of the competition rules.
In prioritising competition enforcement, we mainly consider the following factors:
When assessing the problem’s potential to harm competition and consumers, we take into consideration the benefits that intervention may have for a larger group of consumers, as well as the socio-economic importance of removing the restriction of competition.
Corruption, conflicts of interest and conduct that undermines public confidence are harmful to competition and consumers. Such conduct can also enable and exacerbate violations of the competition rules. Elements of corruption are not uncommon in competition enforcement cases, and this in itself may be an indication that there is a serious competition problem.
Cooperation between competitors
Cooperation between competing undertakings, so-called horizontal cooperation, can cause great harm to consumers. When undertakings jointly fix sales prices, limit or control production, or divide markets, we consider these actions to be very serious. We ascribe high priority to the investigation and prosecution of anticompetitive cooperation, especially cartels.
Cooperation between undertakings that are not competitors
Cooperation between undertakings at various stages in the sales process, so-called “vertical cooperation”, usually contributes to efficient distribution and strengthened competition. However, under certain conditions, it may impose restrictions that harm competition and consumers.
We prioritise vertical restrictions that have the ability to harm effective competition at any market level. In our prioritisation, we attach particular importance to the extent to which the markets in question are affected by the restrictions, how much market power the partners have, and how concentrated the markets are. If other similar forms of cooperation exists in the market, we may be more likely to prioritise the issue.
Abuse of a dominant position
The willingness of undertakings to achieve and maintain market power and profitability is an important driver of competition. However, under certain conditions the unilateral conduct of dominant undertakings may harm consumers, either directly or by harming competition.
In particular, we prioritise issues that have the ability to limit the ability of other undertakings to exert effective competitive pressure at any market level. In our prioritisation, we attach particular importance to the extent to which the market is affected by the issue. When access to an input is impeded, we attach particular importance to the importance of the input in enabling effective competition in the market.
In assessing price-based practices, we attach importance to whether pricing could exclude a competitor that is just as effective as the dominant undertaking. We may also prioritise cases where there are clear signs that a dominant undertaking is directly exploiting customers and consumers as a result of the non-functioning of competition (so-called “exploitative abuse”).
Anticompetitive public sales activities
When public actors (the Swedish state, municipalities and regions) act in a competitive market, they risk distorting the conditions for effective competition. Such action also risks hampering the existence or development of effective competition. We prioritise cases where the conduct of the public operator hampers or distorts the long-term conditions for effective competition. This may be the case when the behaviour of the public operator reduces incentives or opportunities for private undertakings to operate in the market in question. One example of this is when private undertakings are hampered in their development and growth, when they are forced to close down all or part of their business, and when new private undertakings find it difficult to establish themselves or grow.
As a government agency, we have a responsibility to use our resources as efficiently as possible and therefore weigh the expected resource consumption against the benefits of intervention. In this assessment, we ascribe particular importance to whether it is possible to efficiently investigate the case, gather the necessary evidence, and, by means of the competition rules, take effective action against the problem. When an individual law enforcement case is not deemed to be an effective means by which to achieve results, in some cases we may choose to criticise the problem in other ways, for example in an externally published report.
We consider whether an issue is or can be expected to have a major general preventive effect and/or whether there is a need to provide guidance to a wider range of actors. This means that we may prioritise a case in which an intervention or a justified depreciation decision may prevent undertakings and other actors from making mistakes, and where we can use competition enforcement to clarify how to do the right thing. There may be a need for guidance if a violation is deemed to be commonplace. We can also help address unclear legal issues or rules that do not have the effect intended by the legislator.
We may refrain from intervening altogether if some other authority or actor is in a better position to act. For example, if another authority has more appropriate tools to deal with a particular competition or market problem, this may mean that we do not prioritise a case.