COUNTRYCOMPARATIVEGUIDES 2021

The Legal 500
Country Comparative Guides

Japan
COMPETITION LITIGATION
Contributing ﬁrm
Atsumi & Sakai
Hisashi Miyatsuka
Partner | hisashi.miyatsuka@aplaw.jp
Saori Hanada
Partner | saori.hanada@aplaw.jp
Kohei Murakawa
Partner | kohei.murakawa@aplaw.jp
Keita Hitomi
Associate | keita.hitomi@aplaw.jp

This country-speciﬁc Q&A provides an overview of competition litigation laws and regulations applicable in Japan.
For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit legal500.com/guides

Atsumi& SakaiCompetition Litigation: JapanJAPANCOMPETITION LITIGATION

1. What types of conduct and causes ofaction can be relied upon as the basis of acompetition damages claim?
Damages claims
In principle, a party that has suﬀered damage due to aviolation of the Act on Prohibition of Private
Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade ( the“Antimonopoly Act”) (“AMA”) may ﬁle a damages
claim against the violating party based on either (1)Article 709 of the Civil Code (“Type A claims”) and/or(2) Article 25 of the AMA (“Type B claims”). Both typesof claim are based on tort liability. The main diﬀerences
lie in that Type B claims are so-called “follow-on” claims
with strict liability (see Question 2) and how the statuteof limitations is calculated (see Question 5).
Unjust enrichment
In addition, an aggrieved party may ﬁle a claim of unjust
enrichment (Articles 703 and 704 of the Civil Code),which performs a function similar to that of acompetition damages claim, when a contract has beenconcluded based on bid-rigging, abuse of superiorbargaining position, etc. and therefore was held to be
void due to public policy. An unjust enrichment claim isadvantageous because under the amended Civil Codeenforced on April 1, 2020, the limitation period is 5 years
from the time when an obligee becomes aware that it
can exercise its right or 10 years from the time when an
obligee may exercise its right, whichever comes ﬁrst
(Article 166 of the Civil Code). Also, the unjust
enrichment claim is preferable because the burden of
proof of damage can be shifted to the defendant. For
Type A and B claims, the limitation periods are shorter(see Question 5) and the aggrieved party assumes theburden of proving damage.
Injunction
At the same time, in relation to violations or potential
violations of Article 8(v) or Article 19 of AMA (unfair
trade practices), an aggrieved party who is suﬀering or
likely to suﬀer extreme damage is entitled to seek an

PDF Generated: 3-08-2021

injunction to suspend or prevent the infringements(Article 24 of the AMA).

2. What is required (e.g. in terms ofprocedural formalities and standard ofpleading) in order to commence acompetition damages claim?
Type A claims (Article 709 of the Civil Code)Type A claims are general tort claims. Not only directpurchasers but also indirect purchasers may commence
lawsuits for such claims by the ﬁling of complaints with acompetent district court. A claimant must prove (i)existence of intention or negligence; (ii) violation ofrights or legally protected interests; (iii) occurrence andamount of damage; and (iv) legally suﬃcient causation
between the violation and the damage.
Type B claims (Article 25 of the AMA)
Type B claims may only be made after either a ceaseand desist order or a surcharge payment order by theJapan Fair Trade Commission (“JFTC“) has become ﬁnal
and binding regarding, among other things, privatemonopolization, unreasonable restraint of trade or unfair
trade practices (follow-on claims, Article 25(1) and
Article 26(1) of the AMA).
While these claims are under strict liability, Type B
claims are not considered to be advantageous for theclaimant because, with regard to most violations of theAMA, (i) intention or negligence and (ii) the violation
under Type A claims are, as a matter of practice,presumed. On the contrary, those claims are
disadvantageous in that (i) claimants may only assert acompensation claim for damage arising from violating
actions stated in the cease and desist order or surcharge
payment order; and (ii) no claim may be made against
persons other than those to whom the cease and desist
order or surcharge payment order is addressed. In thisregard, a successful leniency applicant that is exempt
from the relevant order (surcharge payment order
and/or cease and desist order) is not liable for damages

2/9© 2021 Legalease Ltd

Competition Litigation: Japan

under Type B claims (whereas, in contrast, they will still
be liable for damages under Type A claims).

3. What remedies are available toclaimants in competition damages claims?
Monetary damages for the amount of damage theaggrieved party actually suﬀered are available remedies
under both Type A and Type B claims (for the method of
calculating damages, see Question 17). It is also possible
to demand an injunction (see Question 1).

4. What is the measure of damages? To
what extent is joint and several liability
recognised in competition damages claims?
Are there any exceptions (e.g. for leniency
applicants)?
See Question 17 for the measure of damages.
If more than one person has inﬂicted damage on othersby their joint tortious acts, each of them shall be jointly
and severally liable for compensation for such damage(Article 719(1) of the Civil Code). Since violators involvedin a price-ﬁxing cartel or bid-rigging are jointly inﬂicting
damage, each of the violators assumes joint and several
liability and therefore is independently liable fordamages for the entire amount of damage. A violator
that has provided compensation to claimants may
demand compensation from the other violators
according to the degree that each of the other violators
has contributed to the total damage to the claimants.
See Question 2 and 16 for leniency applications.

5. What are the relevant limitation periods
for competition damages claims? How canthey be suspended or interrupted?
Type A claims (Article 709 of the Civil Code)A Type A claim is extinguished after 3 years from thetime when the aggrieved party comes to know of thedamage and the identity of the violator, or 20 years fromthe time of the tortious act, whichever comes ﬁrst
(Article 724 of the Civil Code). In practice, the damage
and the violator usually become known to the aggrievedparty when a cease and desist order or a surcharge
payment order is issued by the JFTC, and the limitation
period of 3 years starts to run at that time.
Type B claims (Article 25 of the AMA)A Type B claim
is extinguished after 3 years from the date that a cease

PDF Generated: 3-08-2021

and desist order or surcharge payment order becomesﬁnal and binding (Article 26(2) of the AMA).
Postponement of expiry and renewal of limitation
periodUnder the amended Civil Code enforced on April 1, 2020,the 3-year limitation period for a Type A or Type B claim:(i) does not expire until a speciﬁc point of time in the
future and may be renewed (meaning that a newlimitation period commences to run at the time when thetrigger event ceases) upon, among others, ﬁling of acomplaint with a court (Article 147 of the Civil Code) orcompulsory execution (Article 148 of the Civil Code); (ii)does not expire until a speciﬁc point of time in the future
upon ﬁling of a provisional seizure or provisional
disposition (Article 149 of the Civil Code), demand for
payment (Article 150 of the Civil Code), or when awritten agreement to hold a discussion on rights is made(Article 151 of the Civil Code); and (iii) is renewed upon
acknowledgment of the claim by the obligor (Article 152of the Civil Code).

6. Which local courts and/or tribunals deal
with competition damages claims?
Type A and Type B claims are both handled by thecompetent district court.

7. How does the court determine whether
it has jurisdiction over a competition
damages claim?
For a Type A claim, the court follows the provision on
jurisdiction in the relevant contract (e.g., a purchase andsale agreement between the claimant and defendant forthe products aﬀected by a price-ﬁxing cartel). If there isno such provision, the claimant may submit its complaint
to the district court having jurisdiction over (i) the
principal oﬃce or business oﬃce of a defendantcompany; or (ii) the location where the tort wascommitted or where the damage occurred.
For a Type B claim, the Tokyo District Court has
exclusive jurisdiction (Article 85-2 of the AMA).

8. How does the court determine what law
will apply to the competition damages
claim? What is the applicable standard of
proof?
Applicable law
For both Type A and Type B claims, if the claim is

3/9© 2021 Legalease Ltd

Competition Litigation: Japan

obviously closely connected to a certain place, the law ofsuch place shall apply (Article 20 of the Act on General
Rules for Application of Laws (“AGRAL”). Otherwise, in
principle, the applicable law shall be that of the place
where the result of the infringement of the AMA
occurred. If the occurrence of the result at that place
was ordinarily unforeseeable, the law of the place where
the act of infringement was committed shall govern(Article 17 of AGRAL).
Standard of proof
As in other types of civil litigation, a high probability is
the standard of proof for competition damages claims,
where the causes of action need to be proven to theextent that an average person would not have doubt.

9. To what extent are local courts bound by
the infringement decisions of (domestic or
foreign) competition authorities?
The courts are not legally bound by infringement
decisions issued by domestic or foreign competition
authorities. However, in practice, ﬁnal and binding ceaseand desist orders or surcharge payment orders by the
JFTC would be recognized as strong evidence that
presumes the existence of conduct violating the AMA. It
is generally diﬃcult to overturn such presumptions,although a court will examine other evidence anddetermine the existence of the violating conduct basedon its own ﬁndings.
We expect that ﬁnal and binding infringement decisions
by foreign competition authorities would have the sameevidential value as those issued by the JFTC.

In contrast, Type B claims may only be made after eithera cease and desist order or a surcharge payment orderhas become ﬁnal and binding (See Question 2).

11. What, if any, mechanisms are available
to aggregate competition damages claims(e.g. class actions, assignment/claims
vehicles, or consolidation)? What, if any,
threshold criteria have to be met?
In Japan, there are mechanisms called group action(Shohisya Dantai Sosyo) and appointed party (Sentei
Tojisya).
Group action
Group actions can only be used for limited situations, as
provided in the Act on Special Measures Concerning Civil
Court Proceedings for the Collective Redress for Property
Damage Incurred by Consumers. Compared to the wellknown U.S. class action, the characteristics of theJapanese group action are that (i) only speciﬁed qualiﬁed
consumer organizations authorized by the government
can serve as claimants (i.e. individuals cannot be
claimants); (ii) the subject claims are limited to thosearising from contracts between a consumer and acompany; (iii) it is an opt-in type proceeding where only
those who opt to participate in the group action
proceeding may beneﬁt from the judgment; and (iv) the
judge of a group action may only determine whether thecompany is liable for damages and the amount thereof
cannot be ﬁxed (each plaintiﬀ consumer needs to ﬁle aseparate proceeding to establish the amount ofdamages).
Appointed party

10. To what extent can a private damages
action proceed while related public
enforcement action is pending? Is there a
procedure permitting enforcers to stay a
private action while the public
enforcement action is pending?
Litigation of Type A claims can proceed while the public
enforcement action is pending. There is no statutory
provision which enables the enforcers to stay the Type A
private action. Even while the public enforcement action
is still pending, a court may render a ﬁnal judgment if itreaches the stage to do so. However, in our experience,
it is possible that the private litigation proceedings may
be stayed in eﬀect at the court’s discretion if the court
becomes cautious about recognizing the existence of theviolation of the AMA.

PDF Generated: 3-08-2021

The “appointed party” is a mechanism where persons
with a common interest may appoint one or more
persons from among themselves to stand as theclaimant on behalf of all (Article 30 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (“CCP”)). This mechanism has actually beenused in a competition damages litigation in relation to aviolation of the AMA. Appointed parties do not need tobe lawyers but they must have a common interest withthe other parties.
Assignment of claims
While it is theoretically possible for each claimant toassign its claims to a speciﬁc person, in Japan, it is notcommon for such a person to ﬁle a lawsuit for theassigned claims. This is because it is prohibited by
Article 10 of the Trust Act to create a trust for the
primary purpose of having another person initiate legal

4/9© 2021 Legalease Ltd

Competition Litigation: Japanaction and the aforementioned lawsuit has a risk toviolate this provision.

12. Are there any defences (e.g. pass on)which are unique to competition damages
cases? Which party bears the burden of
proof?
The concept of passing-on defence per se has not been
introduced into Japanese competition law. However, if a
defendant (cartelist) is successful in proving the fact thatsome or all of the overcharges were passed on to downstream companies or consumers, the defendant may
argue that the amount of damages should be reduced
accordingly.
In addition, in the cases of bid-rigging at the initiative of
public oﬃcers, courts allow the amount of damages tobe reduced by taking into account the negligence of the
public oﬃcers (contributory negligence, Article 722 of
the Civil Code).

13. Is expert evidence permitted incompetition litigation, and, if so, how is it
used? Is the expert appointed by the courtor the parties and what duties do theyowe?
Expert report
In competition litigation related to a price-ﬁxing cartel orbid-rigging, a party sometimes submits an expert reportto prove the amount of damage suﬀered. The expert inthese sorts of cases is privately retained by the party.
Given wide discretion in determining the amount ofdamage, the court has not been faced with the necessityof relying on a speciﬁc economic methodology toquantify the amount of damage, although economic
analysis of the amount of damage is becoming morecommon (See Question 17).
Expert testimony and technical advisers
In addition, there is the system of expert testimony(Article 212 of the CCP) and the procedure to hear an
explanation from a technical adviser based on theadviser’s expert knowledge (Article 92-2 of the CCP).
Although the technical adviser system was introduced in
2003, it has not been used frequently in practice.
An expert is appointed by the court at the request of aparty to the litigation. A technical adviser, in contrast, isappointed by the court after hearing the opinions of theparties to the litigation.

PDF Generated: 3-08-2021

Experts assume the obligation to provide an expert
opinion in good faith according to the dictates ofconscience. Technical advisers must perform theirservices faithfully in accordance with their professional
duties. A technical adviser will be dismissed if he/she
violates the foregoing obligation or is determined tohave engaged in any conduct that is not suitable as atechnical adviser.

14. Describe the trial process. Who is thedecision-maker at trial? How is evidence
dealt with? Is it written or oral, and what
are the rules on cross-examination?
Unlike trials in the United States, there is no discovery orjury trial system and therefore the judge is the decision
maker.
For both Type A and Type B claims referred to in
Question 1, the claimant ﬁles an action by submitting awritten complaint to the court and, in response thereto,
the named defendant submits a written answer. The
court designates dates for oral proceedings and theparties make written submissions and oﬀer relevant
evidence at a number of these oral proceedings.
Evidence includes documentary evidence, testimony of
one or more witnesses or expert witnesses andobservation (by the judge, based on the judge’s ﬁve
senses). The court has wide discretion regarding thetypes of evidence to be adopted and the assessment of
adopted evidence, and ﬁnds facts entirely at its
discretion (Principle of the Free Evaluation of Evidence,
Article 247 of CCP).
When legal and factual issues have been suﬃciently
identiﬁed, the court conducts examinations of witnesses,
which need to be conducted in as focused a manner as
possible. The court has discretion to decide the casewithout examination of witnesses. In the crossexamination, it is prohibited to ask about any mattersother than those matters that were raised in the direct
examination, matters related thereto, and mattersregarding the reliability of testimony. In the crossexamination, it is also prohibited to ask questions
seeking statements on facts which the witness has notexperienced directly.

15. How long does it typically take fromcommencing proceedings to get to trial? Is
there an appeal process? How many levelsof appeal are possible?
In our experience, where public entities seek damages inbid-rigging cases, after the ﬁling of the complaint, it

5/9© 2021 Legalease Ltd

Competition Litigation: Japan

usually takes around 1 year to reach witness
examinations and 1.5 years to obtain a ﬁnal judgment.
On the other hand, where purchasers of products subject
to a price-ﬁxing cartel ﬁle damages lawsuits against
cartelists, it may be expected to take around 3 to 4
years to render a ﬁnal judgment, as legal and factualissues in dispute tend to be complicated.
A party dissatisﬁed with a judgment by the district court
may ﬁle an appeal (Kouso), which is handled by a highcourt. A party dissatisﬁed with a judgment by the highcourt may ﬁle a ﬁnal appeal with the Supreme Court(Jokoku).

16. Do leniency recipients receive any
beneﬁt in the damages litigation context?
Generally, there is no mechanism to give leniency
recipients beneﬁts in competition damages litigation.
There are, of course, opinions that such a system should
be introduced in order to make leniency more eﬀective
but there is no momentum to actually establish such asystem.
However, in relation to Type B claims, if leniency
recipients are exempt from an administrative surcharges
order and a cease and desist order, such recipients will
not be liable for damages under Type B claims (seeQuestion 2).

17. How does the court approach theassessment of loss in competition damages
cases? Are “umbrella eﬀects” recognised?
Is any particular economic methodology
favoured by the court? How is interest
calculated?
In competition damages litigation concerning a cartel orbid-rigging, the amount of damage is determined byassessing the monetary diﬀerence between the actual
price of the products or services and the anticipatedprice that would have existed were it not for theviolation of the AMA. While there is no generallyaccepted methodology to determine the anticipatedprice, if it is possible to identify the price formed
immediately before or after the period of violation and if
such price is considered to be formed based on freecompetition, then, in principle, the court tends to ﬁndthat such price is the anticipated price.
In cases where the anticipated price cannot be identiﬁedin this way, the judge has signiﬁcant discretion in
determining the amount of damage. This is because
Article 248 of CCP, which was introduced in 1996, sets

PDF Generated: 3-08-2021

forth that when it is extremely diﬃcult to prove theamount of damage, a court may determine anappropriate amount of damage at its discretion. Due tothis discretionary power, courts have not been facedwith the necessity of relying on a speciﬁc economic
methodology to quantify the amount of damage,although economic analysis of the amount of damage isbecoming more common.
“Umbrella eﬀects” have not been recognized by courts
although the theories have been introduced to Japan.
As for interest, interest for the period from the date on
which the violation occurred until the payment ofdamages is usually approved.

18. Can a defendant seek contribution orindemnity from other defendants? On what
basis is liability allocated between
defendants?
See Question 4.

19. In what circumstances, if any, can acompetition damages claim be disposed of(in whole or in part) without a full trial?
In Japan, there is no U.S.-style summary judgment. If an
action was not ﬁled in accordance with the law (forexample, the party does not have standing or the action
violates the prohibition of duplicate actions) and such
defect cannot be corrected, the court may render adecision to dismiss the action without trying the meritsof the case.
In addition, before the stage of examination of
witnesses, courts often explore the possibility ofsettlement by the parties. Also, courts may issue adefault judgment if the defendant fails to appear.

20. What, if any, mechanism is available
for the collective settlement of competition
damages claims? Can such settlements
include parties outside of the jurisdiction?
As discussed in Question 11, while the group action andappointed party mechanisms for aggregatingcompetition damages claims do exist, there is no special
procedure in place for collective settlement.

21. What procedures, if any, are available

6/9© 2021 Legalease Ltd

Competition Litigation: Japanto protect conﬁdential or proprietary
information disclosed during the court
process? What are the rules for disclosureof documents (including documents fromthe competition authority ﬁle or from otherthird parties)? Are there any exceptions(e.g. on grounds of privilege or
conﬁdentiality, or in respect of leniency orsettlement materials)?
Inspection of case records (Both Type A and B
claims)A third party may inspect and read a case record ofcompetition litigation at the court by ﬁling a request withthe court clerk (Article 91(1) of CCP). When conﬁdential
information, such as a trade secret being kept by a party
to the litigation, is recorded in the case record, suchparty may request that the court issue an order to limit
the persons who may request inspection or copying of
the parts of the case record containing such trade secret
to only the parties to the litigation (Article 92(1)(ii) of the
CCP). If the court issues such an order, the conﬁdential
information will not be disclosed to third parties.
Commission to send documents (Both Type A andB claims)
There is no U.S.-style disclosure in Japan but a claimant
in competition litigation may request that the court
commission the JFTC to send relevant documents (Article
226 of CCP). In accordance with JFTC’s internal policy, if
a cease and desist order or surcharge payment order
has already become ﬁnal and biding, the JFTC discloses
documents relating to the existence of violating acts,
amount of damage, and causation between such actsand damage that were prepared or obtained in thecourse of issuing such order. The JFTC takes appropriate
measures, such as redacting some parts of the
documents, taking into account trade secrets, knowhow,and privacy of oﬃcers or employees.
Order for submission of documents (Both Type A
and B claims)
If disclosure by way of commission is insuﬃcient, theclaimant may require that the court issue an order for
submission of documents (Article 223 of CCP). Unlessthere are grounds for refusing to submit the documents
set forth in Article 220 of CCP, the party possessing such
documents may not refuse to submit the same. The
main categories of documents subject to the grounds forrefusing submission are: (i) documents concerning
conﬁdential information in connection with a publicoﬃcer’s duties, which, if submitted, would likely harm

PDF Generated: 3-08-2021

the public interest or substantially hinder the
performance of a public duty; (ii) documents recording
technical or professional secrets which are not released
from non-disclosure obligation; and (iii) documents
prepared mainly for the use of the persons inpossession. Among these grounds, item (iii) above refers
to internal documents which are never intended to bedisclosed to a third party. While item (iii) might cover
documents subject to attorney-client privilege, we are
not aware of any statute, ordinance, or court precedentthat explicitly states this in relation to the civil litigation
system in Japan. In addition, documents created bypublic oﬃcers for organizational use do not fall under(iii).
Since the employees of the competition authority are
public oﬃcers, whether they have an obligation tosubmit documents to the parties of competition litigation
is determined pursuant to the above criteria. There areseveral court precedents which ordered the JFTC todisclose written statements of employees.
Special provisions for injunction (Article 24 of the
AMA)
With regard to competition litigation seeking an
injunction, there is a special rule regarding court orders
for submission of documents (Article 80(1) of the AMA).
Under this rule, unless there is a justiﬁable reason, aholder of documents necessary to prove the alleged
infringement must submit such documents. In addition
to ordering submission of documents, the court may also
issue protective orders that trade secrets may not be
used for any purpose other than the purpose of
conducting the litigation or be disclosed to third parties(Article 81 of the AMA).
Request for disclosure in administrative
procedures
As a way for the parties to obtain information without
the involvement of a court, they may request disclosureof administrative documents held by the JFTC in
accordance with the Act on Access to Information Heldby Administrative Organs.
Protection of conﬁdential communications
between client and attorney regarding legal
adviceThe 2019 amendment to the AMA, which came into force
on December 25, 2020, introduced a system similar toattorney-client privilege – JFTC investigators will notaccess documents which include conﬁdential
communications between the client and their attorneyregarding legal advice (“Treatment of Conﬁdential
Communications”), especially for cases concerning

7/9© 2021 Legalease Ltd

Competition Litigation: Japan

price-ﬁxing cartels and bid-rigging. This is for the
purpose of promoting leniency applicants’ cooperation
with an investigation.

22. Can litigation costs (e.g. legal, expert
and court fees) be recovered from theother party? If so, how are costs
calculated, and are there any
circumstances in which costs recovery canbe limited?
In principle, court costs are entirely borne by the losing
party (Article 61 of CCP). The court costs include ﬁling
fees, which are determined based on the value of thesubject of litigation, postal charges, transportation costs
and daily allowances for witnesses and fees for experts,
but do not include attorneys’ fees. The amounts fortransportation costs and daily allowance are determined
pursuant to the rules of the Supreme Court. Fees forexpert testimony are determined by the court as it ﬁnds
reasonable.
Basically, the court does not order a losing party to pay
attorneys’ fees, but a claimant for Type A or B claims
may recover some portion of attorneys’ fees from thedefendant as part of damages, since obtaining
appropriate compensation for damage through litigation
is diﬃcult to achieve without retaining lawyers.

23. Are third parties permitted to fundcompetition litigation? If so, are there any
restrictions on this, and can third party
funders be made liable for the otherparty’s costs? Are lawyers permitted to act
on a contingency or conditional fee basis?
There is no statute or court precedent that expressly anddirectly bans third-party funding. However, it is still
under discussion whether any statutory provisions
indirectly prohibit third-party funding. For example,
article 72 of the Attorney Act provides that no person
other than attorney may, for the purpose of obtaining
compensation, engage in the business of providing legal
services. A third-party funder would be exposed to therisk of violating this provision if it were to signiﬁcantly
inﬂuence a party’s actions in competition litigation. For
some consumer litigation, there has been a growing useof crowdfunding to raise funds for litigation.

PDF Generated: 3-08-2021

Lawyers are permitted to act on a contingency fee basis,
although a 100% contingency fee arrangement risks
violating the Code of Conduct of Japanese lawyers.

24. What, in your opinion, are the main
obstacles to litigating competition
damages claims?
Where the AMA is violated in the course of a business
transaction, the aggrieved party and perpetrator usually
have an ongoing business relationship. In such cases,
since the parties wish to maintain a smooth working
relationship, it is common for the dispute to be resolved
through an out-of-court settlement. Due to thispreference for settlement, we do not expect thatcompetition damages litigation will increase in the near
future.
Where the aggrieved party is a consumer, as discussed
in Question 11, the system for group actions isinadequate, and makes it diﬃcult for consumers toinitiate competition damages litigation.

25. What, in your opinion, are likely to be
the most signiﬁcant developments
aﬀecting competition litigation in the next
ﬁve years?
The 2019 amendment to the AMA introduced theTreatment of Conﬁdential Communications, as discussed
in Question 21, and the JFTC published rules andguidelines necessary to implement it. From now on,companies will need to identify in advance thedocuments that should be protected under theTreatment of Conﬁdential Communications and establish
the conditions under which they can be protected under
the Treatment of Conﬁdential Communications, inaccordance with the guidelines.
While there have been a number of court cases where
public entities have pursued claims for damages against
parties that engaged in bid-rigging in connection withpublic works or procurement in Japan, there have been
only a few court cases where companies having ongoing
businesses relationships with violators of the AMA
initiated competition damages litigation.
As we are not aware, at this time, of any speciﬁcmovement aimed at promoting competition damages
litigation, it does not appear to us that there will bemajor developments in the ﬁeld of competition litigationin the coming ﬁve years.

8/9© 2021 Legalease Ltd

Competition Litigation: Japan

Contributors
Hisashi Miyatsuka
Partnerhisashi.miyatsuka@aplaw.jp

Saori Hanada
Partnersaori.hanada@aplaw.jp

Kohei Murakawa
Partnerkohei.murakawa@aplaw.jp

Keita Hitomi
Associatekeita.hitomi@aplaw.jp

PDF Generated: 3-08-2021

9/9© 2021 Legalease Ltd