Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
[Specific cases of violations]

The Case against X Trade Association of Green grocers (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 29 of 1965)

In this case, Companies A, B, and C, which had operated wholesale markets, established a policy of not selling product to brokers who did not belong to the association. This made it impossible to buy greengroceries from the wholesale markets and difficult to conduct business as a greengrocer without joining the association. Under these conditions, the trade association required, as one of conditions of membership, that any new store shall be set up at least 300 meters away from every store of existing constituent firms, and thereby restricted admission into the association. This was found to constitute a violation of Sec. 8 (1) (iii) (Sec. 8 (iii) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

### 5 -1-3- $ \{3\} $ . (Requiring approval from firms that are direct competitors)

Requiring, as a condition for association membership, the approval from or the recommendation of constituent firms that directly compete in the same geographical area or field of business against the firm that is applying for membership.

## [Specific case of violations]

The Case against X Association of Doctors (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 7 of 1980)

In this case, under conditions where it was generally difficult to open a medical practice without becoming a member of the association, the association decided to require hospitals and clinics that wished to commence operations within the association's business sphere to receive permission from the association. Furthermore, the association decided to require that applicants for admission be introduced by a member, and made admission decisions by attaching great importance to the opinions of the constituent firms who were operating in the geographical vicinity of the proposed new facility. This was found to constitute a violation of Sec. 8 (1) (iii) and (iv) (Sec. 8 (iii) and (iv) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

### 5 -1-3- $ \{4\} $ . (Restricting membership by nationality)

Establishing qualification requirements that include restrictions by nationality, such as limiting its members to Japanese corporations or persons.

Note: For example, when a trade association has been commissioned to carry out public works that have an important influence on business activities, and when that association discriminates against non-constituent firms in implementing those works, it might be "difficult to conduct business without joining the trade association."

(2) Conduct relating to entry requirements that do not in themselves pose problems in light of the Antimonopoly Act

In contrast to the conduct as described in (1) above, setting of qualifications for membership or criteria for expulsion does not in itself pose a problem in light of the
Antimonopoly Act, as long as the said qualifications or criteria are reasonable in light of the purposes or content of business of the trade association in question.

In addition, the following types of conduct do not in themselves pose a problem in light of the Antimonopoly Act: the collection of membership fees that are reasonable in light of common practice; the imposition of other economic burdens that are determined on the basis of reasonable calculations; and the establishment of reasonable differences in membership fees or other economic burdens on the constituent firms, based on such factors as scale of business.

### 6. Unfair Trade Practices

A trade association that causes a firm to engage in unfair trade practices shall be found to violate Sec. 8 (v).

If a trade association assumes the characteristics of a firm when conducting its own business operations and then employs unfair trade practices, it shall be found to violate Sec. 19.

Examples of conduct that constitute unfair trade practices by trade associations are given below.

Note: A trade association that substantially restrains competition in a market through such conduct as the following violates Sec. 8 (i) (see 5-1 and 1-2 above): causing firms to refuse to deal with certain firms (6-1 or 6-2), with the result that the latter firms find it notably difficult to enter a market; expelling firms from a market; imposing restriction on resale prices for firms (6-6).

### 6 -1. (Concerted refusal to deal)

Without proper justification, engaging in conduct specified in one of the following items concertedly with competitor(s):

a. Refusing to supply to a specific firm, or to restrict the quantity or substance of goods or service involved in supply to the specific firms; or

b. Causing other firms to refuse to supply to a specific firm, or to restrict the quantity or substance of goods or service involved in supply to the specific firms.

(Sec. 2 (9) (i))

Without proper justification, engaging in conduct specified in one of the following items concertedly with other firms in a competitive relationship (hereinafter referred to as “competitor”):

1. Refusing to receive supply of goods or service from a specific firm, or to restrict the quantity or substance of goods or service involved in reception of supply by the specific firms; or

2. Causing other firms to refuse to receive supply of goods or service from a specific firm or to restrict the quantity or substance of goods or service involved in reception of supply by the specific firms.

(General Designation Article 1)

[Specific cases]
The Case against X trade Association of Lumber Importers (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 16 of 1990)

In this case, to prevent non-constituent firms from importing lumber at Port A, the trade association caused the constituent firms to act in concert to pressure port transport companies to refuse to handle lumber imported by them. The association was found to have caused firms to engage in conduct constituting General Designation Article 1, Item 2 (Sec. 2 (9) (i) (b) of the existing Antimonopoly Act), and thereby to have violated Sec. 8 (1) (v) (Sec. 8 (v) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

The Case against Y Trade Association of Automobile Repair Glass Distributors (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 7 of 1967)

In this case, the association pressured manufacturers to sell automobile repair glass only to specified wholesalers, and pressured the specified wholesalers not to sell the products to non-constituent firms. The association was found to have forced firms to engage in conduct constituting former General Designation Article 1 (Sec. 2 (9) (i) (b) of the existing Antimonopoly Act) and thereby to have violated Sec. 8 (1) (v) (Sec. 8 (v) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

### 6 -2. (Other refusals to deal)

Unjustly refusing to deal, or restricting the quantity or substance of a goods or service involved in a transaction with a specific firm, or forcing another firm to engage in one of these conducts. (General Designation Article 2)

## [Specific cases]

The Case against X Trade Association of Manufacturers of Ready-mixed Concrete (FTC Hearing Decision No. 2 of 1981)

In this case, the association caused the cement manufacturer that supplied nearly all the cement used by ready-mixed concrete manufacturers in a given geographical area to refuse to sell cement to any non-constituent ready-mixed concrete manufacturer that was planning to build new facilities within the business area, as well as to any non-constituent manufacturer outside the area that was selling ready-mixed concrete inside the area. The association was found to have caused firms to engage in conduct constituting General Designation Article 2, and thereby to have violated Sec. 8 (1) (v) (Sec. 8 (v) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

The Case against Y Federation of Cooperative Associations (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 1 of 1990)

In this case, to maintain or to increase the quantity of cardboard boxes used by greengrocers and supplied through distribution channels provided by the federation, the federation forced designated cardboard box manufacturers (which had signed basic sales contracts with the federation) to refuse to supply undesignated manufacturers with cardboard sheet for cardboard boxes. This conduct was adopted as a means of preventing the undesignated manufacturers from selling cardboard boxes. This was found to constitute General Designation Article 2, and thereby to constitute a violation of Sec. 19.
#### 6 -3. (Discriminatory treatment regarding transaction terms, etc.)

Unjustly giving favorable or unfavorable treatment to a specific firm in regard to the terms or execution of a transaction (General Designation Article 4)

[Specific cases]

The Case against X Trade Association of Manufacturers of Pyrethrum Insecticide and the Y Trade Association of Pyrethrum Growers (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 20 of 1963)

In this case, both associations agreed and decided to cause constituent firms of X Trade association to give priority to constituent firms of Y Trade association when buying raw materials (pyrethrum), and furthermore to delay transactions with non-constituent brokers and to employ other treatment that were notably disadvantageous to those brokers. The associations were found to have caused the constituent firms to engage in conduct constituting General Designation Article 2 (Article 4 of the existing General Designation), and thereby to have violated Sec. 8 (1)(v) (Sec. 8 (v) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

#### 6 -4. (Discriminatory treatment in a trade association, etc.)

Unjustly excluding a specific firm from a trade association or from a concerted activity, or unjustly discriminating against a specific firm in a trade association or concerted activity, thereby causing difficulties in the business activities of that firm (General Designation Article 5).

## [Specific cases]

The Case against X Cooperative Trade Association (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 2 of 1957)

In this case, involving a cooperative trade association that shipped all its raw milk to Dairy company A through the federation of cooperative associations, the association engaged in discriminatory actions, such as refusing to lend the cooperative’s funds and insisting on cash transactions for the use of trade association facilities even though which is usually clearance transactions, against a member company that had shipped raw milk to Dairy company B. This was found to constituting General Designation Article 3 (Article 5 of the existing General Designation), and thereby to constitute a violation of Sec. 19.

### 6 -5. (Dealing on exclusive terms)

Unjustly dealing with another party on the condition that the party shall not deal with one's competitor, thereby tending to reduce transaction opportunities for that competitor. (General Designation Article 11)

[Specific cases]

The Case against X Trade Association of Manufacturers of Ready-mixed Concrete (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 23 of 1993)

In this case, ready-mixed concrete cooperative associations A, B, and C (cooperatives)
were constituent members of the X Trade association, which guided and adjusted their joint sales activities, and which decided that the cooperatives should provide rebates (in actual practices, discounts) to members of the D Cooperative association of construction companies, on the condition that the latter buy all their ready-mixed concrete from the Cooperative association A, B and C and should not provide a rebate to any of D's members who bought ready-mixed concrete from non-cooperative sources. In this way, the X Trade association caused the cooperatives to effectively pressure D's members to stop buying ready-mixed concrete from non-cooperative sources. The X Trade association was found to have forced its members to engage in conduct constituting General Designation Article 11, and thereby to have violated Sec. 8 (1)(v) (Sec. 8 (v) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

The Case against Y Cooperative Association (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 12 of 1981)

In this case, the association supplied milk to dairy companies on the condition that the companies should not accept milk supplies from the association's competitors. This was found to constitute General designation Article 7 (Article 11 of the existing General Designation), and thereby to constitute a violation of Sec. 19.

### 6 -6. (Resale price restriction)

Selling goods to another party, while imposing, without proper justification, any of the restrictive terms specified below:

a. Causing the other party to maintain the commodity's selling price that one has determined, or otherwise restricting the other party's free decision on selling price of the goods; or

b. Forcing the other party cause firms that purchases the goods from it to maintain the selling price of the goods determined, or otherwise forcing that other party to restrict the other firm's free decision on selling price of the goods (Sec. 2 (9) (iv) of the Antimonopoly Act) (See 1-2 above).

## [Specific cases]

The Case against X Trade Association of Toy Manufacturers (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 10 of 1972)

In this case, the association decided to cause mass retailers to sell specific toys at a specified list price (a selling price set as a standard for sales by the manufacturer). Based on that decision, the association caused the constituent firms to exact promises from the mass retailers to sell the toys at the list price as a condition of delivery and to refuse to deliver to distributors who did not so promise. The association was found to have caused firms to engage in conduct constituting General Designation Article 8(Sec. 2 (9) (iv) of the existing Antimonopoly Act), and thereby to have violated Sec. 8(1)(v)(Sec. 8(v) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

### 6 -7. (Dealing on restrictive terms)

Except for acts referred to in Sec 2 (9) (iv) (resale price restriction) or in the preceding Paragraph (dealing on exclusive terms), dealing with another party on conditions
that unjustly restrict either that party's transactions with other parties or other business activities of that party. (General Designation Article 12)

## [Specific cases]

The Case against X Trade Association of Retailers of Dental Supplies (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 6 of 1987)

In this case, the association caused the manufacturers of dental supplies to force their distributors to stop the mail-order sales of those supplies. The association was found to have caused the constituent firms to engage in conduct constituting General Designation Article 13 (Article 12 of the existing General Designation), and thereby to have violated Sec. 8 (1) (v) (Sec. 8 (v) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

The Case against Y Cooperative Association (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 12 of 1981)

In this case, to maintain and strengthen its own position, as well as that of Company A (a company that was closely related to the association and that bought raw milk to manufacture dairy beverages), in the prefecture-wide dairy beverage market, the association supplied raw milk to beverage firms other than Company A, on the condition that they refuse to handle the dairy beverage products of manufacturers who did not receive the supply of raw milk from the association. This was found to constitute General Designation Article 8 (Article 12 of the existing General Designation), and thereby to constitute a violation of Sec. 19.

### 6 -8. (Abusing a dominant bargaining position)

Engaging in any conduct specified in any of the following paragraphs, in a manner that is unjustifiable in light of normal business practices, by making use of one's dominant bargaining position over another party:

a. Forcing the other party (including “the other party” with whom continuing transaction is newly intended; the same shall be applicable to b.) to continue transaction to purchase goods or service other than the one involved in the continuing transaction;

b. Forcing the other party to continue transaction to provide money, service, or other economic benefits to one's firm;

c. Refusing reception of goods by the other party involved in transaction;

Forcing the other party involved in transaction to receive goods after receiving the goods involved in the transactions from the other party;

Delaying payment of the price of transaction to be paid to the other party involved in the transactions or reducing the price thereof; or

Setting forth or changing terms of transaction in a way disadvantageous to the other party; or executing the transaction.

(Sec. 2 (9) (v))

## [Specific cases]

The Case against X Federation of Cooperative Associations (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 1 of 1990)
In this case, using its dominant bargaining position vis-a-vis designated manufacturers (which had signed basic sales contracts with the federation for cardboard boxes used for greengroceries), the federation demanded that the designated manufacturers pay cash needed to cover the difference between the federation price and the lower price offered by non-federation distributors in the area where such a sales promotion took place, and thereby prevented the users from buying cardboard boxes at lower prices through non-federation distribution routes. This was found to constitute General Designation Article 14, Item 2 (Sec. 2 (9) (v) (b) of the existing Antimonopoly Act), thereby to constitute a violation of Sec. 19.

### 6 -9. (Interfering with a competitor's transaction)

Unjustly interfering with trade between a firm in competitive relationship domestically and one's firm or companies of which one is a stockholder or an officer, and the other party to such transaction, by preventing the formation of contracts, by inducing the breach of contracts, or by any other means whatsoever. (General Designation Article 14)

## [Specific cases]

The Case against X Trade Association of Sanitary inspectors (FTC Hearing Decision No. 4 of 1979)

In this case, in response to the capturing of the constituent firms’ customers by non-constituent firms the association demanded that the non-constituent firms cease such conduct and return the customers to the constituent firms. If the non-constituent firms failed to comply, the association further caused all constituent firms to promote jointly sales to take back customers from the non-constituent firms. The association was found to have caused the constituent firms to engage in conduct constituting General Designation Article 11 (Article 14 of the existing General Designation), and thereby to have violated Sec. 8 (1) (v) (Sec. 8 (v) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

### The Case against Y Cooperative Association (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 8 of 1989)

In this case, within a certain geographical area where the association engaged in the joint selling of ready-mixed concrete, and under the conditions where it was difficult for construction companies to engage in construction activities only through the use of non-association members' ready-mixed concrete, the association demanded that all constriction companies using non-association members' concrete switch to use concrete supplied by the association members. Furthermore, the association, by threatening to cut off the supply of the association members' concrete to those construction companies that refused to abide by the association's demands, prevented construction companies from trading with non-association concrete suppliers. This was found to constitute General Designation Article 15 (Article 14 of the existing General Designation), thereby to violate Sec. 19.

### 7. Conduct Relating to Variety, Quality, Standards, etc

(1) Conduct that Restricts Variety, Qualify, Standards, etc.
The variety, quality, standards, and other aspects of goods or services can serve as means of competition among firms. Therefore, any conduct of trade associations that impedes competition by restricting these aspects constitutes a violation of Sec. 8 (iii), (iv), or (v). In addition, any conduct that might substantially restrain competition in a market by, for example, restricting the varieties of goods with the intention of allocating markets (see 3-2 above) constitutes a violation of Sec. 8 (i).

### (2) Self-Regulation, etc., Self-imposed Certification, Authorization, etc

For such purposes as rationalizing production and distribution systems and enhancing consumer convenience, trade associations establish sell-regulation standards regarding the variety, quality, standards, and other aspects of goods and services, and establish quality-related self-regulation, self-imposed certification, authorization, and related activities that are necessary for such socially beneficial purposes as preserving the environment or ensuring safety (Notes 1-4). Although there are some instances in which such activities do not pose any particular problems in light of the Antimonopoly Act, depending on their content or manner of activities, such activities can impede competition in terms of the development or supply of diverse goods or services, and thereby might violate Sec. 8 (iii), (iv), or (v), even if the activity in question takes the form of self-regulation, self-imposed certification, authorization, and so forth, it violates Sec. 8 (i) if it substantially restrains competition in a market.

The judgments as to whether or not self-regulation or related conduct constitutes an impediment to competition under the provisions of Sec. 8 (iii), (iv), or (v) are made on the basis of the considerations outlined in sub-paragraph A below, "judgments concerning Self-Regulation, etc." Similarly, judgments concerning self-imposed certification, authorization, and so forth are made on the basis of the considerations outlined in sub-paragraph B below, "Judgments concerning Self-imposed Certification, Authorization, etc.," in conjunction with the considerations outlined in sub-paragraph A below.

### A. Judgments concerning Self-Regulation, etc

The following factors should be considered when judging whether or not a given self-regulation activity constitutes an impediment to competition.

The following factors $ \{1\} $ and $ \{2\} $ are the main criteria for judgment, and the factor $ \{3\} $ is a sub-element that should be taken into account in making a judgment:

{1} Whether the activity unjustly harms the interests of users by restricting means of competition (Sec. 8 (iv));

{2} Whether the activity unjustly discriminates among firms (Sec. 8 (iii), (iv) and (v)); and

(3) Whether the activity is within the necessity rationalized scope to achieve social or other rightful purposes.

To ensure that self-regulation or similar conduct does not constitute an impediment to competition on the basis of the above considerations, an trade association should, when initiating self-regulation activity, carefully hear the