Japan
Answer ... Under the Anti-monopoly Act (AMA), private claimants may seek an injunction against conduct that constitutes an unfair trade practice to restore their position to that held prior to the violation. However, conduct that constitutes private monopolisation is not subject to such injunctions. Nevertheless, as certain types of conduct may constitute both private monopolisation and an unfair trade practice, private claimants may seek an injunction against such conduct as private monopolisation, while also alleging that it constitutes an unfair trade practice.
Japan
Answer ... Under Japanese law, including the Anti-monopoly Act (AMA), class actions or other forms of collective action against private monopolisation or unfair trade practices are not available. Anyone that incurs damages due to private monopolisation may file suit for damages pursuant to Article 25 of the AMA or Article 709 of the Civil Code.
Japan
Answer ... Under Japanese law, there are no special procedures for private enforcement against private monopolisation or unfair trade practices. Therefore, such actions will follow the ordinary civil procedures stipulated in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Japan
Answer ... Anyone that incurs damages due to private monopolisation may file suit for damages pursuant to Article 25 of the AMA or Article 709 of the Civil Code.
A party that brings a claim under Article 709 of the Civil Code must prove:
- an infringement of rights;
- intention or negligence;
- damages (including the amount thereof); and
- causation (more precisely, reasonable causation between the infringement and the damages).
On the other hand, damages claims pursuant to Article 25 of the AMA may be brought once a cease-and-desist or surcharge payment order of the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) is finalised. A party that brings a claim under Article 25 of the AMA must prove:
- an infringement of rights;
- damages; and
- causation.
It need not prove the defendant’s intent or negligence. Further, the claimant may utilise the JFTC’s findings from the relevant order as evidence of the alleged infringement.
Private claimants may seek an injunction against conduct that constitutes an unfair trade practice to restore their position to that held prior to the violation, pursuant to Article 24 of the AMA. However, conduct that constitutes private monopolisation is not subject to such injunctions. Nevertheless, as certain conduct may constitute both private monopolisation and an unfair trade practice, private claimants may seek an injunction against such conduct as private monopolisation, while also alleging that it constitutes an unfair trade practice.
Under Article 25 of the AMA, anyone whose interests are infringed or likely to be infringed by such conduct and who thereby incurs or is likely to incur serious damages can seek the suspension or prevention the infringement against any infringing company or trade association.
Moreover, in urgent cases, before it issues a cease-and-desist order, the JFTC may file a petition for an urgent injunction to request the court to order the suspected party to temporarily suspend the relevant conduct.
Japan
Answer ... Court decisions against private enforcement actions may be appealed. As private enforcement follows the ordinary civil procedure pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, the district court’s decision may be appealed to the relevant high court, whose decision may be further appealed to the Supreme Court.