Antitrust Recidivism: Why Repeat Cases Appear, and Why True Reoffending Is Rare in the United States

Lisa M. Phelan, Megan S. Golden, Adrienne Irmer, and Nina Worth published an article in Competition Policy International that discussed allegations of corporate antitrust “recidivism” and how they often mischaracterize the nature of repeat cases. The authors argued that true recidivism is uncommon in the U.S., and that many repeat prosecutions reflect the operation of enforcement incentives that prompt disclosure of contemporaneous or overlapping conspiracies once a company is under investigation. 

The authors wrote, "Understanding the distinction between overlapping conduct and post-sanction reoffending is essential for accurately assessing deterrence and for designing effective antitrust compliance programs. These dynamics have important implications for how enforcers evaluate deterrence and how companies approach internal investigations, disclosure decisions, and compliance design."

Read the full article.