Convincing Neutral Decision-Makers: 
Legal and Evidentiary Lessons from the Rogers–Shaw and Microsoft–Activision Decisions

Emrys Davis and Christina Skinner write for Competition Law International in Volume 19, analyzing the implications of third-party review in competition law cases.

They discuss two major merger cases, Rogers–Shaw in Canada and Microsoft–Activision in the U.S., highlighting how the courts' approaches to law and evidence differed from those of the enforcers. The article emphasizes the importance of fair, efficient and common-sense approaches to legal issues and evidence, and how the courts preferred credible testimony and rejected unsupported expert evidence. Emrys and Christina conclude with critical takeaways for enforcers and practitioners in competition law, emphasizing the need to adapt to current circumstances and the importance of credible, well-supported evidence.

The full article is available to subscribers on Competition Law International's website.