|
The failing firm defence is a controversial practice because, although it provides economic and social benefits, it carries a high risk of creating monopolies and situations where the dominant position is abused. Critics focus on the stringent requirements and the heavy burden of proof because they increase the risk of companies taking more dangerous alternatives to remain in the market and, as they point out, in some cases, the result has been that the authorities have deviated from the strict application of the failing firm defence. The solution proposed by academic commentators is the counterfactual analysis, but the long-term consequences of its application for competition are uncertain, so a further study of these consequences or a development of the failing firm defence, in order to make it more accessible, is necessary. |