Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
either not to deal with specified firms or to deal exclusively with specified firms [see Note]).

Note: For example, compiling and distributing a list of specific firms with a financial rating of each firm either inferior or superior (including so-called black list) might cause the formulation of such agreements among constituent firms.

### 10. Management Guidance

(1) The Nature of Management Guidance

Because small and medium-scaled enterprises (SMEs) have relatively insufficient managerial knowledge, trade associations comprised of SMEs may provide management guidance that will help those constituent firms to improve their business operations on their own decisions. Such guidance in principle does not pose a problem in light of the Antimonopoly Act.

## (2) Conduct suspected to Constitute a Violation

However, a trade association's guidance activities such as described below, which provide firms with specific common standards concerning prices and other important competition-related factors connected with present and future business activities, are suspected to violate the Act, even if the activities take the form of management guidance.

If a trade association's guidance leads to restrictive conduct by the trade association, such as that as described in 1-1 (Fixing prices, etc), or if it accompanies such restrictive conduct, the case shall, as cited in Item 1 (Conduct that Restricts Prices) and so forth, be found to constitute a violation of Sec. 8.

10-1. (Providing cost accounting guidance by publishing uniform make-up standards, etc.)

Providing guidance regarding computation or cost accounting through such methods as indicating the average cost, uniform make-up standards, and so forth; or indicating standard quantities, or working amounts and so forth, accompanied by the unit prices of required materials associated with goods or services supplied by the constituent firms.

## [Specific cases of violations]

The Case against X Trade Association of Propane Gas Wholesalers (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 17 of 1965)

In this case, because it had been discovered that a majority of the part-time propane wholesalers belonging to the trade association had been computing the selling price of propane gas without using proper cost accounting on security and depreciation costs, the association formulated a standard cost-accounting table and directed constituent firms to sell at a price that included estimated fixed amounts for operating expenses and profits. Thus, by adding these fixed amounts to the purchase price of the gas, the trade association decided the standard wholesale prices of propane gas sold to retailers and used in home and businesses. This was found to constitute a violation of Sec. 8 (1) (i) (Sec. 8 (i) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).
(3) Conduct in Principle Not Constituting a Violation

In contrast to the activities described in (2) above, management guidance of the types cited below, which are engaged in by associations comprised of small and medium-scaled enterprises and which do not affect competition among them, does not in principle violate the Antimonopoly Act.

10-2. (Disseminating general management knowledge and providing technical-skills training)

Disseminating general knowledge concerning management and providing technical-skills training.

### 10 -3. (Individualized management guidance)

In response to a request from constituent firms, providing management guidance tailored to the actual management conditions of individual firms.

10-4. (Formulating general methods for cost accounting, etc.)

Formulating general methods that list standard items for cost accounting or computation, and providing general guidance or instruction concerning these methods (except for providing firms with common standards for prices).

### 11. Joint Undertakings

(1) The Diversity of Joint Undertakings

Trade associations sometimes engage in activities that have the characteristics of joint activities by the constituent firms (hereinafter referred to as "joint undertakings"). There are types of these activities that either serve to promote competition or that have no direct impact on competition. These include: joint undertakings carried out by a legally established cooperative association, comprised of small and medium-scaled firms that cannot successfully compete against large companies by themselves, that was formed for the purpose of forming an effective competitive unit; and joint undertakings, carried out by an association, concerning social, cultural or other types of activities not directly related to the main line of business of constituent firms. At the same time, however, an association engaging in joint undertakings has the potential to become a business operator in the field concerned, and thereby to affect competition in a market; and it also has the potential to restrict the business activities of individual constituent firms. Therefore, depending on their content and form, such joint undertakings might violate Sec. 8(i), (iii), (iv), and (v), as well as Sec. 19.

## (2) Basic principles

Judgments as to whether or not a trade association's joint undertakings pose any problem in light of the Antimonopoly Act will be made through overall consideration of the factors listed in A. through C. below.

A. The Content of Joint Undertakings
Consideration will be given to whether or not the joint undertakings have an impact on competition-related factors such as the price or quantity of the goods or services in question.

For example, the joint sale, joint purchase, or joint production of goods or services can determine, with regard to the process of the joint undertakings, important competition-related factors relevant to the undertakings such as price, quantity, or choice of customer; therefore, these types of joint undertakings are more likely than other types of joint undertakings to pose a problem in light of the Antimonopoly Act.

On the other hand, joint undertakings relating to transport or storage, where such activities are incidental to a firm's main business, are in themselves expected not to affect the intrinsic price or quantity of goods, or the choice of customers, and are therefore less likely than the type of joint sales and so forth described above to pose a problem in light of the Antimonopoly Act. However, care must be taken to ensure that such undertakings do not result in restrictions on competition-related factors such as price, quantity, customers, or sales channels in relation to goods associated with constituent firms.

In contrast to the above, joint undertakings such as the following, which have little impact on competition in a market, in principle do not pose a problem in light of the Antimonopoly Act: public relations activities designed to promote general understanding of a given business field overall; welfare work; or social and cultural activities (Sec. 8 (i), (iv)).

### B. The Total Market Share of Firms Participating in Joint Undertakings, etc

If the total market share of the firms participating in joint undertakings is large, or if the firms otherwise are, as a group, in a position to influence the market, their joint undertakings are more likely to pose a problem in light of the Antimonopoly Act. Conversely, if the total market share of the participating firms is low, or if the firms, as a group, are not in a position to influence the market, their joint undertakings are less likely to pose a problem in light of the Antimonopoly Act (Sec. 8 (i), (iv)).

### C. The Manner of Execution of Joint Undertakings

If a trade association forces its constituent firms to participate in or to use joint undertakings, or if it discriminates among firms with regard to their participation in or use of such undertakings, the association's activity might pose a problem in light of the Antimonopoly Act (Sec. 8 (iii), (iv), (v), (i), and Sec. 19).

## (3) Conduct Suspected to Constitute a Violation

On the basis of the basic principles described in (2) above, the following types of conduct are suspected to constitute violations of the Antimonopoly Act.

#### 11 -1. (Joint sale, etc.)

Jointly selling, purchasing, or producing goods or services (except for the conduct referred to in 11-4 below). (Sec. 8 (i), (iv))
[Specific cases involving violation]

The Case against X Trade Association of Concrete Block Manufactures (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 1 of 1995)

In this case, the trade association decided to implement a joint-sale business that included the following conditions: $ \{1\} $ the association would buy up and sell all concrete blocks for engineering works handled by the constituent firms; and $ \{2\} $ the number of concrete blocks the association would buy from each constituent firm was allocated on a monthly basis in terms of the proportion of each firm's shipments, as decided by the association. This was found to constitute a violation of Sec. 8 (1) (i) (Sec. 8 (i) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

The Case against Y Trade Association of Tissue Paper Manufacturers (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 14 of 1969)

In this case, the trade association established trademark "A" for the brown tissue paper it sold through joint sales, and decided that the constituent firms should not sell "A" tissue paper outside the association and manufacture any brown tissue paper other than "A" goods. The association then established limits on the amount and selling price of the tissue paper purchased from the constituent firms, and furthermore bought up and sold all tissue paper entering its business area from outside sources. This was found to constitute a violation of Sec. 8 (1) (i) (Sec. 8 (i) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

The Case against Z Trade Association of Platemakers of Engraving Rubber for Printing Applications (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 8 of 1968)

In this case, the trade association engaged in the joint purchase of raw materials used by the constituent firms to manufacture rubber plates for printing applications. Enjoying complete control of the supply of the materials within its business area, the association decided that the constituent firms should buy them exclusively from the association so that non-constituent firms could not enter the market. This was found to constitute a violation of Sec. 8 (1) (iv) (Sec. 8 (iv) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

### 11 -2. (Joint transport and joint storage)

Affecting the price or quantity of goods, or the constituent firms' choice of customers, while implementing joint-transport or joint-storage operations. (Sec. 8 (i), (iv))

11-3. (Forcing participation in joint undertakings, etc)

Forcing the constituent firms to participate in or to use joint undertakings, or discriminating against firms with regard to their participation in or use of such undertakings. (Sec. 8 (iii), (iv), (v), (i) and Sec. 19)

## (4) Conduct in Principle Not Constituting a Violation

On the basis of the basic principles described in (2) above, the following types of conduct in principle do not violate the Antimonopoly Act (except for the conduct
referred to in 11-3 above).

11-4. (Joint undertakings by firms with a small collective market share)

Joint undertakings by firms whose collective market share of the goods or services is too small to have any impact on competition in a market.

11-5. (Joint undertakings to enhance customer convenience)

Operating joint parking lots to enhance customer convenience or establishing joint exhibition facilities to promote industry-wide sales.

11-6. (Joint undertakings that have little impact on competition)

Joint undertakings, including public relations activities designed to promote general understanding of the field of business overall, welfare work, or social and cultural activities, that have little impact on competition in a market.

12. Conduct relating to Public regulations, Administration, etc.

The public regulations have been made against private firms for a variety of reasons, for example, socially beneficial purposes such as the health and safety assurance and the environment conservation, and purposes for rectifying the capital allocation with regard to goods or services for which market mechanisms do not effectively function. Such restrictions on the business activities of firms, however, can also have the effect of imposing certain restrictions on competition among firms.

Even in cases where the public regulations are needed for the realization of a certain policy goal, it is important to minimize the restrictive effects of such regulations on competition, and to leave as much room as possible to ensure function of competition. If a trade association restricts competition among firms in the regulated fields, those activities will pose a problem in light of the Antimonopoly Act. In cases where public regulations are relaxed or abolished, free competition among firms should be restored to the extent of such relaxation or abolishment. Therefore, it goes without saying that any attempt by a trade association to restrain competition in such fields will also pose a problem in light of the Antimonopoly Act.

It is worth noting that, when government agencies commission a trade association to undertake public works, the association, in undertaking such works, has the potential to engage in such conduct as discriminatory treatment, and that such conduct might pose a problem in light of the Antimonopoly Act.

In the process of exercising their administrative functions, government agencies sometimes provide administrative guidance to trade associations and they act on the basis of that guidance. However, it is worth noting that, even when such guidance is considered necessary for smooth functioning of governmental administration, it is possible that the guidance will lead to activities on the part of the association that restrain competition, depending on the content or method of the guidance, as well as on the content or manner of activities undertaken by a given association on the basis of that guidance.

(1) Restrictive Conduct Concerning Approval, Permission, Notification, etc.
Public regulations sometimes require firms to obtain approval or permission, or to comply with procedures concerning notification or other requirements before business activities may be undertaken. Under such conditions, if a trade association engages in the following types of conduct that restrict prices, facilities or other matters relating to the constituent firms, and that thereby substantially restrain competition in a market, the association will be found to violate Sec. 8 (i). Even if such conduct as the following does not lead to the substantial restraint of competition in a market, the association will nonetheless in principle be found to violate Sec. 8 (iv).

It should also be noted that under approval or notification systems the activities of trade associations likely lead to restrictive activities of this kind such that applications or notifications agencies by firms are submitted to government in a single bundle by associations, or when the firms are forced to submit via such associations.

#### 12 -1. (Restricting applications for approval, etc.)

Restricting the content of applications for approval or notifications that relate to the business operations of the constituent firms.

[Specific cases]

The Case against X Trade Association of Taxi Operators (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 16 of 1982)

In this case, the association decided what should be the content of applications submitted by constituent firms with regard to increasing taxi fares, and made the said firms submit applications that complied with that decision. This was found to constitute a violation of Sec. 8 (1) (iv) (Sec. 8 (iv) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

The Case against Y Trade Association of Bus Companies (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 9 of 1989)

In this case, concerning applications for approval to change operating plans so that the number of chartered buses could be increased, the association limited the number of additional vehicles for which applications could be submitted, and made the constituent firms submit applications that complied with that decision. This was found to constitute a violation of Sec. 8 (1) (iv) (Sec. 8 (iv) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

The Case against Z Trade Association of Taxi Operators (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 4 of 1981)

This case, concerning applications for approval to change operating plans so that the number of taxis could be increased and so that operating facilities could be either constructed or moved, the association decided that all such applications shall be discussed in advance at the association's headquarters. Based on these discussions, the association further decided the number of additional vehicles that each constituent firm could apply for, and decided, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not it was acceptable for each constituent firm to apply to build or to move its operating
facilities. This was found to constitute a violation of Sec. 8 (1) (iv) (Sec. 8 (iv) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

12-2 (Fixing, within a range of approved fees, the amounts of fees to be received, etc.) In cases where the constituent firms have the right to set their fee within an approved range between maximum and minimum fees (hereinafter referred to as an "approved range of fees"), deciding the amount of the fees to be received by the constituent firms or deciding to maintain or to raise fees within that range.

## [Specific cases]

The Case against X Trade Association of Bus Companies (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 9 of 1989)

In this case, bus operators were allowed to freely set their fares for chartered buses within 15 percent above or below from the standard fare approved by government agency. Under these conditions, the association decided the minimum fares that had to be charged by the constituent firms for bulk transport with chartered buses. This was found to constitute a violation of Sec. 8 (1) (i) (Sec. 8 (i) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

12-3. (Fixing the amounts of fees to he received at the level lower than the approved fees) In cases where the transactions in which the actual transaction fee is below the minimum level of the approved range of fees, or below the fixed amount when approved fees have been established with such a fixed amount, have been conducted peaceably and openly on a constant basis, and in spite of such circumstances, no legally effective measures have been taken against such conduct by the competent authorities for no short period of time, deciding the amount of the fees to be received by constituent firms or deciding to maintain or raise fees to a level lower than the minimum or a specified fee that has been approved.

12-4. (Fixing the amounts of fees to be received, where notification, etc. is required) Fixing, maintaining, or increasing the amounts of fees to be received by the constituent firms and for which notification or display is required under public regulation.

## [Specific cases]

The Case against X Trade Association of General Travel Agents, etc. (FTC Recommendation Decision No. 13 of 1991)

In this case, the Travel Agency Act stipulated that travel agents shall display the handling charges received from travelers using their services and that the agents were prohibited from charging more than the amounts displayed. In actual practice, however, many travel agents had been charging less than the displayed fees for their services, or had been charging no fee. In response to this situation, the association decided to set a goal of charging fees to travelers as displayed, indicated this intention to its constituent firms, and notified them that when they received handling fees they should use an itemized statement showing the amount of receipt.
equivalent to the displayed amount. This was found to be in violation of Sec. 8 (1)(iv) (Sec. 8 (iv) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

(2) Restricting Business Activities That Are within the Regulated Fields but Not Directly Subject to the Regulation

While the business field itself is subject to public regulation, prices and certain other important competition-related factors are not subject to public regulation. With regard to such factors if an association engages in restrictive activities such as those described in 1-1 (Fixing prices, etc.) above, it will be found to be in violation of Sec. 8, as described in Item 1 (Conduct that Restricts Prices) and elsewhere (see illustrative example $ \{1\} $ below). The same principle applies to restrictive conduct in business fields for which public regulations have been relaxed or abolished (see illustrative example $ \{2\} $ below).

[Illustrative examples]

{1} Despite the fact that there are regulations regarding the entry of new firms and the construction of facilities, but not regarding fees in a certain business sector, the association in question decides the fees for services provided by its constituent firms, based on information exchanged among those firms.

(2) Despite the fact that public regulations regarding fees for services provided have been abolished and the fee setting is liberalized for constituent firms, the association in question decides the fees for service provided by its constituent firms, based on past practices or on information exchanged among those firms.

(3) Conduct That Constitutes a Violation with Regard to Commissioned Public Work, etc. When a government agency commissions a trade association to carry out certain works for the implementation of public projects (hereinafter referred to as "public work"), that association is possibly to engage in conduct, including discriminating treatment against certain firms, that might pose a problem in light of the Antimonopoly Act. Specific cases involving this type of violation are as following.

In addition, when a government agency provides administrative guidance that requires a firm to join an association or to receive an association's approval before it plans to enter a market, the administrative guidance in itself should be deemed to cause problems in light of the Antimonopoly Act. In such cases, an association is possibly to engage in conduct that might pose a problem in light of the Antimonopoly Act regarding the approval of membership by an association or its entry into a market. Specific cases involving this type of violation are also described below.

#### 12 -5. (Unjustly restricting lousiness activities that accompany public work, etc.)

Using unfair trade practices, such as imposing conditions that unjustly restrict the business activities of particular firms, when conducting association's activities that accompany public work. (Sec. 19)

[Specific cases]

The Case against X Cooperative Association (FTC Hearing Decision No. 1 of 1978)