Critical Examination of the Circumstantial Evidence Threshold in Competition Law: Obstacle or Legal Certainty?
Keywords:
Circumstantial Evidence; Competition Law; Legal CertaintyAbstract
The use of circumstantial evidence is indispensable in competition law enforcement, as direct evidence of anticompetitive agreements is rarely available. However, the appropriate threshold for such evidence remains deeply contested, raising a fundamental tension between effective deterrence and legal certainty. This normative legal research, employing comparative and teleological analysis of Indonesian, European Union, and United States jurisprudence, critically examines whether the circumstantial evidence threshold operates as an obstacle to enforcement or as a safeguard for predictability. The findings reveal that an excessively high threshold requiring exclusion of all plausible alternative explanations creates a safe harbor for sophisticated cartels, particularly disadvantaging agencies with limited investigative powers such as Indonesia's KPPU. Conversely, an overly low and unstructured threshold risks false positives, condemning legitimate parallel conduct in oligopolistic markets and chilling pro-competitive behavior. Neither extreme is defensible. The study concludes that the optimal framework lies in a balanced, structured approach: competition authorities must present a consistent and objective body of circumstantial facts establishing a plausible inference of collusion, after which defendants may articulate non-collusive alternatives, with the ultimate burden remaining on the authority. This balanced threshold harmonizes enforcement efficacy with legal certainty, ensuring that competition law protects consumer welfare without sacrificing due process.
References
C. R. Leslie, “The Factor/Element Distinction in Antitrust Litigation,” William & Mary Law Review, vol. 64, no. 3, hlm. 585–632, 2023, doi: 10.1162/jole_a_00123.
D. Ashton, D. Henry, dan F. Maier-Rigaud, “Prosecuting Cartels without Direct Evidence of Agreement,” OECD Journal: Competition Law and Policy, vol. 9, no. 3, hlm. 7–56, 2009, doi: 10.1787/clp-v9-art11-en.
M. L. T. Centella, “Indirect Evidence of a Cartel in the GIS Judgments Saga,” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, vol. 3, no. 3, hlm. 258–60, 2012, doi: 10.1093/jeclap/lps005.
M. M. Collins, “The Burden and Standard of Proof in Competition Litigation and Problems of Judicial Evaluation,” ERA Forum, vol. 5, hlm. 66–83, 2004, doi: 10.1007/s12027-004-0046-1.
E. K. Dewi, Z. V. Chumaida, dan S. A. Wulandari, “Characteristics of Indirect Evidence towards Price Fixing Agreements in the Perspective of Competition Law,” Policy, Law, Notary and Regulatory Issues (POLRI, vol. 3, no. 1, hlm. 139–55, 2024, doi: 10.55047/polri.v3i1.975.
M. Filippelli, “Competition Policy and the Oligopoly Problem: The Weakness of Cartel Rules against Tacit Collusion,” Concorenza e Mercato, hlm. 1–25, 2019, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3353872.
D. A. Herman dan S. B. Sacher, “An Economic Analysis of Twombly/Iqbal with Applications to Antitrust,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics, vol. 11, no. 1, hlm. 107–44, 2015, doi: 10.1093/joclec/nhu028.
P. Dillah, “Metode Penelitian Hukum: Dilengkapi Tata Cara dan Contoh Penulisan Karya Ilmiah Bidang Hukum/Suratman,” 2015.
Y. Katsoulacos dan D. T. Ulph, “Legal Uncertainty, Competition Law Enforcement Procedures and Optimal Penalties,” European Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 40, hlm. 1–20, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s10657-015-9491-5.
W. E. Kovacic, R. C. Marshall, L. M. Marx, dan H. L. White, “Plus Factors and Agreement in Antitrust Law,” Michigan Law Review, vol. 110, no. 3, hlm. 393–436, 2011, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1980164.
C. R. Leslie, “Probative Synergy of Plus Factors in Price-Fixing Litigation,” Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 115, no. 6, hlm. 1–69, 2021.
M. J. Melícias, “‘Did They Do It?’ The Interplay between the Standard of Proof and the Presumption of Innocence in EU Cartel Investigations,” World Competition, vol. 35, no. 3, hlm. 1–28, 2012, doi: 10.54648/WOCO2012034.
W. H. Page, “Direct Evidence of a Sherman Act Agreement,” Antitrust Law Journal, vol. 83, no. 2, hlm. 1–25, 2021, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3726855.
Parluhutan, The Implementation of Circumstantial Evidence Pursuant to the European Union Competition Law, the German Cartel Law and the Indonesian Competition Law. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2019. doi: 10.5771/9783845292733.
C. Volpin, “The Ball Is in Your Court: Evidential Burden of Proof and the Proof-Proximity Principle in EU Competition Law,” Common Market Law Review, vol. 51, no. 4, hlm. 1159–85, 2014, doi: 10.54648/COLA2014089.
J. Basedow, “The Burden of Proof in Competition Law: A European Perspective,” dalam Evidence and Proof in Competition Law, C. D. Ehlermann dan I. Atanasiu, Ed., Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2015. doi: 10.5040/9781509915097.
A. Cosnita-Langlais dan J.-P. Tropeano, “How Procedures Shape Substance: Institutional Design and Antitrust Evidentiary Standards,” dalam The Economics of Competition Law, J. Doe, Ed., Berlin: Springer, 2018, hlm. 143–64. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-78945-4_8.
A. Ezrachi, “The Globalization of Antitrust Enforcement and the Role of Indirect Evidence,” Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, vol. 8, no. 2, hlm. 245–70, 2020, doi: 10.1093/jaenfo/jnaa012.
J. A. Keyte dan I. Simmons, “Thou Art Weighed in the Balance And Found Wanting? Evidence in Government Merger and Monopolization Litigation,” Antitrust Magazine, vol. 37, no. 1, hlm. 12–17, 2022, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4023456.
I. Kokkoris, “The Standard of Proof in Cartel Cases: A Comparative Perspective,” World Competition, vol. 38, no. 4, hlm. 521–48, 2015, doi: 10.54648/WOCO2015029.
V. Korah, “The Burden and Standard of Proof in EU Competition Law,” European Competition Law Review, vol. 40, no. 7, hlm. 301–12, 2019, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3425678.
C. R. Leslie, “The Decline and Fall of Circumstantial Evidence in Antitrust Law,” American University Law Review, vol. 69, no. 6, hlm. 1–76, 2020, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3598865.
H. D. Lestari, “Parallel Pricing and the Use of Circumstantial Evidence in Proving Price-Fixing Cartels,” Veritas et Justitia, vol. 11, no. 2, hlm. 1–22, 2024, doi: 10.25123/vej.v11i2.9259.
D. Liakopoulos, “Protection of Competition through the Principle of Legal Certainty – The Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union,” Meritum, vol. 13, no. 2, hlm. 1–33, 2019, doi: 10.46560/meritum.v13i2.6827.
G. Monti, “Presumptions and Burden of Proof in EU Competition Law: The Intel Judgment,” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, vol. 10, no. 7, hlm. 448–56, 2019, doi: 10.1093/jeclap/lpz048.
