Fernando de Magalhães Furlan
A very recent legislative innovation in Brazil pertains to the private enforcement of Competition Policy in the country. On November 16, 2022, Law nº 14,470/2022[1] was enacted, which delivers new provisions, applicable immediately, to the repression of violations of the economic order (competition). The new law amends provisions of the Brazilian Competition Law (Law nº 12,529/11).
The very site of the Brazilian Competition Authority, CADE, published[2] that “ten years after the entry into force of Law nº 12,529/2011, the publication of Law nº 14,470/2022 encourages and facilitates the filing of private actions by the harmed individuals and firms for anticompetitive practices” [emphasis added]. The enactment of Law nº 14,470/2022 ushers in a new era for the competition private prosecution system and details important issues for its development, such as the applicable statute of limitations and the initial term that must be used in its count.
In addition, it deals with the distribution of the burden of proof and the provision of double compensation for damages, generating greater legal certainty and adequate incentives. In line with the international best practices on competition private enforcement, the new Brazilian law establishes a double damages system, that is, double compensation for damages suffered by third parties due to violations against competition and the economic order.
Another important point concerns the inversion of the burden of proof in relation to the defense thesis usually presented by the offenders: the “pass-on defense” (pass-on the guilt to the supply chain).
Finally, the updates in the Brazilian Competition Law increase the dissuasive nature of antitrust enforcement, better integrating the complementarity between the sanctioning law, of a public nature, and that of civil liability, of a private nature. This is because, in addition to imposing double compensation, the new law also makes Cade’s decision capable of justifying the granting of protection of evidence, allowing the judge to make a preliminary decision on indemnity actions in defense of individual or homogeneous individual interests, confirming the court’s deference to the decisions of the Competition Authority, which is a specialized and independent body. This is a very important legislative innovation toward granting more power to CADE’s decisions on the discussion of evidence in competition private damage litigation.
It is true that civil liability and administrative liability run different systems, but it’s also true that, in Brazil, the legislator wanted, ultimately, to make a direct connection between them, as anticompetitive behavior is so vile for the economy and the society, as wholes, but also for the individual economic agent. And so, the last applicable and specific legislation toward that issue is Law nº 14,470/2022, which recognizes that by establishing a “double damages” formula for civil damage proceedings in Brazil and allowing any judge to make a preliminary decision on indemnity actions in defense of individual or homogeneous individual interests, based on the evidence gathered by CADE, The Brazilian Competition Authority.
The Brazilian Competition Law, of a public nature, has a clear trend toward making private antitrust enforcement a key player in the deterrent effect of the country’s competition policy. We invite the reader to take into adequate account the recent enactment of Law nº 14,470/2022, with a reinforcing regime for double civil/private liability for anticompetitive behavior and judicial deference to CADE’s decisions, amongst other legislative improvements.
Judicial Deference in Brazil:
The Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) recently (2020)[3] reaffirmed its standard of judicial deference in the judgment of Recurso Extraordinário (Extraordinary Appeal) No. 1083955[4], stating that “the technical expertise and institutional capacity [of an agency or authority] demands a deferential posture from the Judiciary to the merits of the decisions handed down by the Administrative Authorities. Judicial control should limit itself to examining the legality or abusiveness of administrative acts and decisions”.
Due to the judgement of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), which granted deference to a decision by CADE on the imposition of penalties for breaches of antitrust legislation, judicial deference constitutes a posture of the Judiciary Power regarding the assessment of aspects formal and substantial aspects of the administrative-regulatory act, and that the decision of the agency/authority must be respected and maintained, when the criteria of legality, reasonableness and proportionality are fulfilled, with the judge being prohibited from replacing the administrator, or administrative judge, in what concerns administrative merits.
For the Rapporteur of RE 1085399, Justice Luiz Fux: “the examination of the materiality of the conducts and the identification of the damages to the markets demand specialized and qualified treatment, reveals the reduced expertise of the Judiciary for the jurisdictional control of the political and technical choices underlying the economic regulation, as well as its systemic effects”[5].
Such trend was even more consolidated in Brazil with the entry into force of Law No. 14,470, at the end of last year (2022). This very recent law inserts Section (Art.) 47-A in the current Brazilian Competition Law (Law 12,529/11), which reads: “The decision of the Tribunal of CADE referred to in art. 93 of this Law can substantiate the granting of guardianship of evidence, allowing the judge to decide on the actions provided for in art. 47 of this Law”. (Included by Law 14,470/22).
In conclusion:
- Private competition enforcement is a pillar of the Brazilian Competition Policy and has two main goals: (i) compensation for damages suffered by economic agents, and (ii) contributing to the deterrence of anticompetitive conducts. The very recent legislative improvements in Brazil (specially Law 14,470/22) clearly points precisely to a broad application of Article 33 of the Brazilian Competition Law. The competitive damage lies in the distortion of competition and affects the private agent(s) in its (their) own activity(ies). The offended diffuse (general) interest is individualized into a private interest, in the sense that the damage to the market also qualifies as damage to the competitor(s) and vice-versa.
- Law No. 14,470 of 2022 brought the brand-new first paragraph (§ 1º) of Article 47 that reads: “The aggrieved persons will be entitled to double compensation for the damages suffered due to infractions to the economic order provided for in items I and II of § 3º of art. 36 of this Law, without prejudice to the sanctions applied in the administrative and criminal spheres” [emphasis added]. The new Brazilian Law, which amends the current Competition Law clearly and undoubtably affirms the right of damaged persons and firms to double compensation in a judicial private damage claim for losses imposed by anticompetitive conducts, since they were proved in a CADE’s decision.
- The civil indemnity claim can be addressed to any of the members of the anticompetitive conduct, regardless of legal ties, contracts, or partnerships. This is because the conduct of all those who participated, directly or indirectly (by action or by default), in the anti-competitive practice contributed, anyhow, to the harm caused. Therefore, participants in anti-competitive conducts are jointly and severally liable for the damages caused, under the terms of the paragraph of Article 942 of the Brazilian Civil Code and Article 33 of the Brazilian Competition Law (Law 12.529/11), regardless of whether they have maintained direct relations with the claimant(s). If one of the participants in the conduct is obliged to pay the indemnity in full, it will have the right of recourse against the other offenders, under the terms of article 283 of the Brazilian Civil Code.
[1] Available at: https://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/lei-n-14.470-de-16-de-novembro-de-2022-443760820. Access on February 11, 2023.
[2] Available at: https://www.gov.br/cade/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/lei-que-estrutura-o-sistema-de-persecucao-privada-concorrencial-e-promulgada. Access on February 13, 2023.
[3] October 25th, 2020.
[4] Judgment statement: “DIVERGENCE REQUESTS IN REQUESTS OF STATEMENT IN THE INTERNAL APPEAL ON THE EXTRAORDINARY APPEAL (RE). ECONOMIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. COMPETITION. HARMFUL PRACTICE TENDED TO ELIMINATE POTENTIAL COMPETITION FROM NEW RETAILER. ANALYSIS OF MERITS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACT. IMPOSSIBILITY. NO PROOF OF JURISPRUDENTIAL DISAGREEMENT. ABSENCE OF FACTICAL SIMILITUDE. NON-EXISTENCE OF ANALYTICAL COLLECTION. REQUEST OD DIVERGENCE UNADMITTED”. Available at: https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=5287514. Access: February 13, 2023.
[5] BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Tribunal Pleno. Agravo Regimental no Recuso Extraordinário n. 1.083.955/DF. Agte(s): Cascol Combustíveis para Veículos Ltda. et all. Rapporteur: Justice Luiz Fux. Date of judgment: 28/05/2019. Date of Publication: June 7th, 2019. P. 16. Apud MUNDSTOCK, João Pedro Mallmann. “O DEVER DE DEFERÊNCIA DO PODER JUDICIÁRIO DIANTE DOS ATOS ADMINISTRATIVO-REGULATÓRIOS DE ALTA COMPLEXIDADE TÉCNICA”. Monografia de conclusão de curso. UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO GRANDE DO SUL. FACULDADE DE DIREITO.