In Japan, there is no US-style class action system and comprehensive discovery system in civil court proceedings. As a result, claimants have faced difficulties in bringing antitrust suits, and the number of antitrust suits has been relatively small over the years. In the early 2000s, damage suits were filed by residents representing local governments that had suffered damages due to bid riggings by entrepreneurs in violation of the prohibition of “unreasonable restraint of trade” under the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolisation and Maintenance of Fair Trade (the “Antimonopoly Act”). Since then, damages claims regarding “unreasonable restraint of trade” such as cartels and bid-riggings have been the most major type of claims in private antitrust litigation in Japan; however, the recent trend shows that claims for compensation for damages arising from “unfair trade practice”, such as abuse of a superior bargaining position prohibited by the Antimonopoly Act, have been filed with the court more frequently than in the past.

Moreover, cases have been seen where claimants have filed a petition for injunction under Article 24 of the Antimonopoly Act based on allegations that their interests are infringed, or are likely to be infringed, by certain unfair trade practices.

Other notable types of antitrust-related litigation recently include deliberative lawsuits pursuant to the Companies Act filed by the shareholders of a company against the directors of the company who engaged in conduct in violation of the Antimonopoly Act, seeking compensation for damages arising from the company’s payment of administrative surcharges due to this violation.

As an example of court cases where claimants sought compensation for damages based on “unfair trade practice” in violation of the Antimonopoly Act, in June 2022, the Tokyo District Court rendered a judgment ordering the defendant (an operator of an online restaurant review and search platform) to pay compensation for damages in the amount of JPY38.4 million suffered by the plaintiff on the grounds that the defendant had abused their superior bargaining position in violation of the Antimonopoly Act by changing their restaurant rating algorithm in an improper manner that was disadvantageous to the plaintiff. In this case, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) submitted an amicus brief in response to the court’s request and the court took into consideration the JFTC’s opinion on the application and interpretation of the Antimonopoly Act. While the Tokyo District Court decision was reversed by the Tokyo High Court in January 2024, this case is expected to promote potential claimants’ actions based on “unfair trade practice” in violation of the Antimonopoly Act.

As an example of shareholders’ derivative lawsuits, in March 2022, the Tokyo District Court rendered a judgment ordering the defendant directors of an asphalt mixture manufacturing company to pay compensation for damages in the amount of over JPY1.5 billion holding that the defendant directors had been involved in or had recognised cartel activities in violation of the Antimonopoly Act, constituting a breach of the directors’ duty of care, making the directors liable for damages equivalent to the amount of administrative surcharge conceded and paid by the company in question. Several shareholders’ derivative lawsuits were filed following this decision, and are currently pending before the Japanese courts. It is therefore important for corporate managers to pay particular attention to the risk of being sued by shareholders as a result of violation of the Antimonopoly Act.

Damages Claims

As the statutory basis for a claim for damages for breach of competition law in Japan, a claimant who has suffered damages by conduct that constitutes private monopolisation, unreasonable restraint of trade or unfair trade practice in violation of the Antimonopoly Act is entitled to bring a follow-on claim on the grounds of strict liability under Article 25 of the Antimonopoly Act, or a standalone claim on the grounds of general tort under Article 709 of the Civil Code.

Anti-competitive conduct includes cartels and bid riggings, which are typical examples of unreasonable restraint of trade prohibited under the Antimonopoly Act. Agreements on price fixing, production limitation, and market and customer allocation are typical examples of the behaviour of cartels. Unfair trade practice includes price discrimination, restrictions on resale pricing, below-cost sales, anti-competitive divisions of territories, concerted refusal of trade, and abuse of superior bargaining position.

Under Article 25 of the Antimonopoly Act, companies and business associations that have been engaged in, or party to, private monopolisation, unreasonable restriction of trade or other unfair trade practices are liable for compensation for damages suffered by other entities due to such conduct. As a prerequisite to filing a claim under Article 25, the plaintiffs need to demonstrate that the JFTC has issued a cease-and-desist order and/or an administrative surcharge payment order and that such orders have become irrevocable.

Under Article 709 of the Civil Code, any person who has engaged in conduct violating the rights or legally protected interests of another person must compensate them for the damages arising from such conduct, including anti-competitive conduct described above.

Other Remedies and Actions

Injunction

In addition to damages claims, a claimant whose interests are infringed, or are likely to be infringed, by certain unfair trade practices is entitled to file a petition for injunction under Article 24 of the Antimonopoly Act. Such unfair trade practices include violation of Article 8, item 5 (ie, activities by a business association that cause a member entrepreneur to employ unfair trade practices) or Article 19 (ie, unfair trade practices by an entrepreneur) of the Antimonopoly Act.

Recovery of unjust enrichment

It may also be possible for a claimant to bring an action to recover unjust enrichment based on Articles 703 and 704 of the Civil Code, depending on the circumstances.

For instance, under Japanese law, agreements or contracts between private parties may be declared void pursuant to Article 90 of the Civil Code if such agreements or contracts include a provision in violation of the Antimonopoly Act. Accordingly, a party to such agreement or contract may file an action to recover the benefits provided to the other party as unjust enrichment, on the grounds that the agreement or contract is void, and restitution shall be made.

Derivative lawsuits under the Companies Act

In the event that the JFTC finds that a company has violated the Antimonopoly Act, qualified shareholders of the company may file a lawsuit against the directors of the company for their wilfulness or negligence in failing to perform their duty of care pursuant to Articles 423 and 847 of the Companies Act, if the company does not initiate a lawsuit against the directors within 60 days of receipt of the shareholders’ request to file the lawsuit. In particular, if the JFTC renders an administrative surcharge payment order against the company or the company is found liable for damages under Article 25 of the Antimonopoly Act or Article 709 of the Civil Code, the shareholders may file a derivative lawsuit against the directors of the company seeking compensation for damages equivalent to the amount of the administrative surcharge or damages paid by the company.

In Japan, there are no specialist competition courts and competition judges. However, the Antimonopoly Act provides that the Tokyo District Court has exclusive jurisdiction in follow-on claims for compensation for damages under Article 25 of the Antimonopoly Act, and such claims are assigned to the Eighth Civil Affairs Department (the commercial affairs department) of the Tokyo District Court. The Antimonopoly Act also provides that an action for injunction under Article 24 can be brought in a local district court in a place where a high court is located; namely, Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Hiroshima, Fukuoka, Sendai, Sapporo and Takamatsu. If an action for injunction under Article 24 is brought in other local district courts, the case may be transferred to one of the above-mentioned eight district courts. The Tokyo District Court also has exclusive jurisdiction as the court of first instance over a challenge to a cease-and-desist order or an administrative surcharge payment order rendered by the JFTC.

In the event that a plaintiff files a follow-on damage claim based on Article 25 of the Antimonopoly Act, which may be filed only after the JFTC’s cease-and-desist order or an administrative surcharge payment order becomes irrevocable, the defendants are not permitted to deny their wilfulness or negligence for the violation of the Antimonopoly Act found by those JFTC orders.

In addition, it is generally considered that the findings of violation of the Antimonopoly Act set forth in the JFTC orders, which became irrevocable through administrative hearing procedures or civil court proceedings, create a rebuttable presumption that the Antimonopoly Act was violated.

As a matter of practice, even the decisions of national competition authorities in other jurisdictions could be taken into account, to some extent, by the court in charge of private antitrust cases in determining whether the Antimonopoly Act was violated, particularly when the facts and evidence are common to both cases.

There is no mechanism for the JFTC to intervene in damages actions in court.

Allocation of Burden of Proof

Damages claims

In seeking compensation for damages through Japanese civil court proceedings, the plaintiff alleging the defendant’s violation of the Antimonopoly Act bears the burden of proof to demonstrate: (i) the illegal conduct of the defendant; (ii) damages; (iii) a causal relationship between the damages and the violation; and (iv) the negligence or wilfulness of the defendant.

In a damages action under Article 25 of the Antimonopoly Act, the plaintiff does not need to prove the defendant’s negligence or wilfulness. With regard to the defendant’s “negligence or wilfulness”, the burden of proof does not have a serious impact in practice, even on damages claims under Article 709 of the Civil Code, since the defendant’s conduct in violation of the Antimonopoly Act normally demonstrates that the defendant was negligent in being involved in such conduct.

With regard to the “illegal conduct of the defendant”, it is generally considered that findings of violation of the Antimonopoly Act by JFTC orders that have become irrevocable through administrative hearing procedures or civil court proceedings create a rebuttable presumption that the Antimonopoly Act was violated.

Injunction

In claims for injunction based on Article 24 of the Antimonopoly Act, a plaintiff must prove that: (i) the defendant’s conduct falls under certain types of unfair trade practices in violation of Article 8, item 5, or Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act;(ii) the plaintiff’s interests are infringed or are likely to be infringed; (iii) the plaintiff suffered, or is likely to suffer, “material” damages by such conduct; and (iv) there is a causal relationship between the material damages and the defendant’s conduct.

The plaintiff does not need to prove the defendant’s negligence or wilfulness in engaging in the conduct at issue.

Recovery of unjust enrichment

For an action to recover unjust enrichment based on Articles 703 and 704 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant received benefit without any legal cause and thereby caused loss to the plaintiff.

Actions based on the invalidity of contracts violating the Antimonopoly Act

For an action based on the invalidity of contracts violating the Antimonopoly Act, the plaintiff will need to prove the relevant facts indicating the invalidity of the contract under Article 90 of the Civil Code.

Derivative lawsuits under the Companies Act

In a derivative lawsuit under the Companies Act, the plaintiff shareholders need to prove the negligence or wilfulness of the defendant directors, the amount of damage and a causal relationship between the defendants’ conduct and the damage.

Standard of Proof

As to the standard of proof, the party with the burden of proof must show that the alleged facts are “highly probable” in order to obtain a court judgment in their favour through civil court proceedings.

When a defendant argues that the plaintiff’s loss has been reduced by the plaintiff having passed on to its consumer any overcharge arising from the defendant’s violation of the Antimonopoly Act, the plaintiff (ie, a direct purchaser) will be required to prove the actual amount of damage by taking into account the passing-on value (ie, the amount that the direct purchaser has collected from indirect purchasers).

Claimants must initiate damages claims within whichever of the following two periods elapses earlier: (i) 20 years from the date on which the alleged violation of the Antimonopoly Act first occurred; or (ii) three years from the date on which the claimant first became aware of the alleged violation.

Claimants must initiate damages claims under Article 25 of the Antimonopoly Act within three years from the date on which the relevant cease-and-desist order or administrative surcharge payment order rendered by the JFTC became irrevocable.

Under Article 166, paragraph 1 of the Civil Code, a claim for recovery of unjust enrichment pursuant to Articles 703 and 704 of the Civil Code must be brought within ten years of the date of the conduct at issue and within five years of the date on which the claimant first became aware of the alleged violation.

There is no limitation period for an injunction, pursuant to Article 24 of the Antimonopoly Act.

Under Japanese law, limitations are considered as part of substantive law. Even after the expiry of any of the limitation periods described above, the court may uphold the claims if the defendant does not bring the defence of limitation.

The running of the limitation period can be suspended on the following grounds, among others: (i) filing of a lawsuit on the merits based on the subject claim with the court; (ii) filing of a petition for attachment, provisional seizure, or provisional disposition based on the subject claim with the court; (iii) entering into an agreement to engage in negotiations; or (iv) any acknowledgement of the subject claim by the defendant.

In general, the Law on Expediting Trials provides that a period of two years is a target period for the completion of the first instance of civil court proceedings. However, the duration of court proceedings may well depend on various circumstances, including the complexity of each case. Although it usually takes at least one year for the court to render a judgment for the first instance in typical civil cases, private antitrust litigation could last for more than two years because the judges, who are not necessarily familiar with the antitrust laws and regulations, need to examine relatively complicated issues, including the calculation of damages.

Class/collective actions are not available under Japanese law. Although there were discussions as to whether the amendments to the Antimonopoly Act should include the introduction of collective actions for damages claims under Article 25, and actions for injunction under Article 24 of the Antimonopoly Act, such collective actions have not been included in the amendments to date. This is because consumers as prospective plaintiffs taking such collective actions would not be able to use the scheme effectively due to their burden of proof and, under the current civil court proceedings, multiple claimants are already entitled to bring claims as co-plaintiffs.

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, two or more persons may file an action as co-plaintiffs if they have: (i) common rights or obligations based on the same factual or statutory cause; or (ii) rights or obligations of the same kind, based on the same kind of factual or statutory causes, as the subject matter of the lawsuits.

In addition, the Code of Civil Procedure provides the appointed party system under which each plaintiff or defendant may appoint another plaintiff or defendant as a representative of each plaintiff/defendant. Multiple claimants may use these schemes in bringing competition law claims before civil court proceedings in Japan.

Plus, qualified consumer organisations are entitled to file an action for injunction for lawsuits under the Consumer Contract Act, as well as injunctions under Article 10 of the Act Against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations. Furthermore, in 2016, the relevant law introduced a new system for consumer organisations qualified by the Japanese government to file a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages under consumer contracts. In such actions, the plaintiffs may assert the defendants’ violation of the Antimonopoly Act.

Class actions are not available under Japanese law. See 4.1 Statutory Basis.

Class actions are not available under Japanese law. See 4.1 Statutory Basis.

Class actions are not available under Japanese law. See 4.1 Statutory Basis.

Rules on Jurisdiction

The Code of Civil Procedure provides the basic jurisdictional rules for private antitrust litigation and damages actions. For instance, a local district court having jurisdiction over the location of a defendant’s principal office/domicile has jurisdiction over claims brought against the defendant. A local district court having jurisdiction over the place of violation of the Antimonopoly Act also has jurisdiction over claims based on such violation. If more than one court has jurisdiction over the claim at issue, the claimant may, in principle, choose the court where the claims are to be heard.

As special jurisdictional rules for antitrust litigation, the Antimonopoly Act provides that the Tokyo District Court has exclusive jurisdiction over follow-on claims for compensation for damages under Article 25 of the Act, and exclusive jurisdiction over a challenge to a cease-and-desist order or an administrative surcharge payment order rendered by the JFTC. The Antimonopoly Act also provides that an action for injunction under Article 24 of the Act can be filed with a local district court in the place where a high court is located; namely, Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Hiroshima, Fukuoka, Sendai, Sapporo and Takamatsu.

A defendant may request the court to dismiss the claims due to lack of jurisdiction. If a defendant wishes to request the court to dismiss the claims due to lack of jurisdiction, the defendant must submit such defence at the same time as, or prior to, submitting its defence on the merits.

Rules on Applicable Law

Since private antitrust claims for damages are considered as tort claims under Japanese law, the choice-of-law rules on tort claims govern the applicable law for private antitrust claims. Under Japanese choice-of-law rules, the law governing tort claims is the law of the place where the result of the relevant tortious act has occurred. Accordingly, the law of the place where the result of the relevant violation of the Antimonopoly Act has occurred shall govern the relevant antitrust claims for damages.

In the event that foreign law governs the claims, but the facts to which the foreign law applies do not constitute a tort under Japanese law, no claim for damages or any other remedies under the foreign law will be accepted by the Japanese court. Even if the facts to which the foreign law applies constitute a tort under both the foreign law and Japanese law, the victim may only make a claim for damages or any other remedies permitted under Japanese law.

There is no procedure for comprehensive disclosure of documents under Japanese law, nor is there a discovery procedure. However, the following disclosure schemes may be available for private antitrust claimants.

Court Order of Document Production Under the Code of Civil Procedure

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, a party may request the court to order the other party or a third party to produce particular documents while the civil court proceedings are pending, with certain limitations. For instance, under the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no obligation to disclose the following: (i) a document relating to matters for which the holder or a certain related person is likely to be subject to criminal prosecution or conviction; (ii) a document concerning a secret in relation to a public officer’s duties that, if submitted, is likely to harm the public interest or substantially hinder the performance of public duties; (iii) a document containing any fact that certain professionals (eg, a doctor, an attorney at law, a registered foreign lawyer) have learnt in the course of their duties and that should be kept secret; (iv) a document containing matters relating to technical or professional secrets; or (v) a document prepared exclusively for use by the holder.

To render an order of document production against a third party, the court must seek such third party’s opinion in advance of rendering such order.

Access to the JFTC’s Administrative Hearing Procedures

As victims of alleged violation of the Antimonopoly Act, plaintiffs may request reproduction and review of the documents submitted to the JFTC’s administrative hearing procedures, where an entrepreneur disputes the validity of a cease-and- desist order and/or an administrative surcharge payment order. Such documents include legal briefs and evidentiary documents submitted to the hearing procedures by a JFTC administrative investigator as well as the entrepreneur, but do not include documents within the files of JFTC investigators that were obtained or created during the course of their investigations.

Access to the Case Record of Civil Court Proceedings

Any person is entitled to review the case record of civil court proceedings where the validity of the JFTC’s cease-and-desist orders and administrative surcharge payment orders are challenged by entrepreneurs. Any person who has legal “interests” is entitled to obtain a copy of the case record, including briefs and evidence submitted by the JFTC, which may include documents the JFTC collected during its investigations. Plaintiffs or potential plaintiffs of private antitrust claims are likely to be included as a person who has legal “interests” and may have access to such documents.

While an entrepreneur, as a party to said civil court proceedings, is entitled to file a petition requesting the court not to disclose any documents to third parties, the scope of documents subject to such petition is limited to personal information and trade secrets.

Court Request to the JFTC for Provision of Documents

In the event that a damages claim is filed with the court, the court may, upon petition by the claimant, request the JFTC to provide plaintiffs with access to certain documents collected by the JFTC, including those collected from third parties during their investigations, except for certain information such as trade secrets and privacy information.

Court Order of Preservation of Evidence Under the Code of Civil Procedure

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, a potential plaintiff may file a petition for a court order of preservation of evidence prior to filing a lawsuit if there are circumstances where it will become difficult to use the evidence, unless such evidence is reviewed in advance. This order essentially serves as an order of pre-action disclosure of evidence.

Access to the Case Record of Criminal Court Proceedings

As the victim of a crime under the Antimonopoly Act, a plaintiff may have access to the documents submitted to the pending criminal proceedings if certain requirements are fulfilled. Any person may access the documents submitted to the criminal proceedings once the proceedings are finalised. However, a plaintiff does not have access to the documents within the files of public prosecutors obtained and created during the course of criminal investigations.

Under civil court proceedings in Japan, documents cannot be withheld from disclosure on the basis that they are privileged. Unlike in common law jurisdictions, there is no concept of attorney-client privilege or other privilege to protect attorney-client communication or attorney materials under the civil court proceedings.

Attorneys have the right to refuse to give testimony concerning their communication with their client and they are not obliged to produce documents exchanged with their clients and regarded as “a document containing any fact which certain professionals have learnt in the course of their duties and which should be kept secret” or “a document containing matters regarding technical or professional secrets” under the Code of Civil Procedure. However, clients have no right to protect their communications with their attorneys on the basis that they are privileged in civil court proceedings.

It is noteworthy that the 2019 Amendment introduced the protection of attorney-client privilege to the JFTC’s administrative investigation procedures for unreasonable restraint of trade; however, such protection does not apply to antitrust litigation cases before the Japanese courts. Nevertheless, it is expected that attorney- client privileged documents will not be submitted to the civil proceedings as evidence by the JFTC.

Regarding leniency materials, the JFTC has a policy under which it will not disclose information submitted by leniency applicants unless the applicant wishes to disclose such information. Such information may be excluded from the information subject to plaintiffs’ requests for reproduction and review of documents submitted to JFTC administrative hearing procedures and may also be excluded from the information subject to the court’s request for access to the documents collected through the JFTC investigations.

Under the newly introduced commitment procedure, the JFTC has a policy that it may use the materials submitted by the petitioner during the course of the commitment procedures for further investigations to be conducted by the JFTC when the JFTC disapproves of the petitioner’s plan to take the necessary measures to cease the entrepreneur’s conduct allegedly violating the Antimonopoly Act. The degree to which the materials submitted to the commitment procedures are protected from disclosure in future antitrust private litigation proceedings will be a significant issue in this field.

Witnesses of fact are relied on in civil court proceedings in Japan. A party to a lawsuit may make a request to the court for the examination of a witness of fact and the court will determine whether such witness examination is necessary for the purpose of finding the relevant facts. Upon such request, a party is usually asked to submit a written statement of the witness to the court in order for the court to decide whether to call the witness. In general, witnesses of fact are subject to cross-examination in relation to the matters raised during direct examination. Judges may also ask the witnesses supplementary questions after examination by the parties.

In civil court proceedings in Japan, the court may order a subpoena of witnesses who do not voluntarily appear before the court, without justifiable reason, so that such witnesses can be forcibly taken before the court. Penalties may also be imposed on witnesses who have failed, or refused, to appear before the court, although such penalties are not severe. In practice, however, it is unusual in civil proceedings for the court to order a subpoena or impose penalties even if a witness does not appear.

Depending on the nature of the issues involved in each case, the court will rely on expert witnesses. A party to the lawsuit may submit to the court, as documentary evidence, a report prepared by an expert appointed by such party. In order to examine the credibility of such report, the opposing party may request the court to conduct cross-examination of the expert. A party may request the court to appoint an independent expert to provide an expert opinion and the court then determines whether it is necessary to appoint such expert. Once an expert is appointed by the court, such expert is obliged to give their opinion in the relevant field in which they have expertise.

Under Japanese civil court proceedings, there are no particular rules regarding concurrent expert evidence, including whether experts are requested to produce joint statements indicating the areas in which they agree/disagree in advance, or whether to adopt alternative methods of hearing expert evidence.

Assessment of Damages

One of the main methods for assessing damages in cartel cases is to calculate the difference between: (i) the price of the relevant product immediately before the alleged cartel activity; and (ii) the price of the relevant product actually applied in the transaction at issue.

Passing-on value – ie, the amount that direct purchasers have collected from indirect purchasers – may be taken into account when calculating the extent of damages suffered by the direct purchasers. In cases involving both direct and indirect purchasers, it tends to be difficult to prove the amount of damages, as well as any causal relationship between the violation at issue and the alleged damages.

The Supreme Court decision of 8 December 1989 held that damages arising from cartel activity are the difference between the actual sales price and the sales price that would have been used if not for the cartel in question (ie, the expected sales price). This assumes that the sales price immediately before the cartel was formed is the expected sales price, unless significant changes in economic conditions and market structures occurred – for example, between the time of the cartel’s activity and the time that customers purchased the merchandise at issue. The Supreme Court decision also held that plaintiffs must prove that no such significant change in economic factors took place, and that if providing such proof is not possible, the presumption shall not be allowed, and the plaintiffs (indirect purchasers) must prove the expected sales price based on factors of price formation. However, the court’s decision was harshly criticised by scholars and practitioners, in that plaintiffs must bear the burden of almost impossible proof pursuant to this decision.

In calculating the amount of damages claimed based on Article 25 of the Antimonopoly Act, the court may seek the JFTC’s opinion. In addition, Article 248 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the court to determine a reasonable amount of damages if it is extremely difficult for the parties to prove the precise amount due to the nature of the damages. The court may determine the amount of damages arising from the violation of the Antimonopoly Act with the assistance of these schemes.

Under Japanese law, collection of exemplary or punitive damages is not permitted in civil proceedings since such remedies are considered as being contrary to public policy in this country.

In calculating the amount of damages sought by private antitrust claims, neither administrative surcharges imposed by the JFTC nor criminal fines imposed by the criminal court are taken into consideration by the court.

“Passing-on” Defences

A defendant may argue that the loss suffered by the plaintiff (ie, the direct purchaser) has been reduced by having passed on to its consumer any overcharge arising from the defendant’s violation of the Antimonopoly Act. The plaintiff will then be required to prove the actual amount of damages by taking into account the passing-on value (ie, the amount that the direct purchaser has collected from indirect purchasers).

The “passing-on defence” under Japanese law is therefore discussed in the context of the scope of damages, as opposed to in the context of the standing. If a direct purchaser passed on the amount of loss to its customers, it would be difficult to prove that the direct purchaser suffered actual loss and, as a result, the amount of damages would be reduced accordingly.

Interest

Interest, or a delinquency charge, is payable on damages arising from a tortious act, including a violation of the Antimonopoly Act, at a rate of 5% per annum under the former Civil Code. Under the amended Civil Code effective as of 1 April 2020, the statutory rate has changed from 5% per annum to 3% per annum, subject to possible change once in a three-year period. Until 31 March 2026, the statutory rate of 3% shall remain the same.

In court judgments, the interest or delinquency charge is usually imposed on damages until these are paid in full, and thus includes both pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest.

Private claimants can bring a claim against multiple defendants who have committed, among other breaches, unfair restraint of trade or joint refusal to deal under the Antimonopoly Act (eg, cartel participants as joint tortfeasors), based on the theory of joint and several liability.

Since immunity applicants in the JFTC’s administrative investigations or criminal investigations are not entitled to receive any beneficial treatment in follow-on private antitrust cases, there are no limitations on the plaintiff’s antitrust claims against cartel participants, even if some of them are immunity applicants.

A defendant can bring a claim for “contribution” against a third party who assumes joint and several liability. For instance, in the event that the court renders a judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant who is one of the cartel participants through a civil court proceeding, the defendant may initiate another civil court proceeding to bring a claim for contribution against another cartel participant who should be jointly and severally liable as a joint tortfeasor.

It is possible, under the Code of Civil Procedure, for a defendant to give notice of a lawsuit to a third party who has a legal interest in the result of the lawsuit, in that the defendant could pass on liability to, or share its liability with, such third party. The third party receiving the notice may join the lawsuit as an assisting intervener. Once a third party receives notice of a lawsuit, such third party will not be able to dispute certain facts in a subsequent lawsuit with the defendant.

Injunctive relief is available under Article 24 of the Antimonopoly Act. A claimant whose interests are infringed, or are likely to be infringed, by violation of Article 8, item 5 (ie, activities by a business association that cause a member entrepreneur to employ unfair trade practices) or Article 19 (ie, unfair trade practices by an entrepreneur) of the Antimonopoly Act is entitled to file a petition for injunction under Article 24. In such action, a claimant may demand suspension or prevention of infringement by an entrepreneur or a business association if that person has suffered, or is likely to suffer, material damages by such conduct. The action cannot be initiated based on unreasonable restriction of trade, which includes cartels and bid rigging, and private monopolisation, while some unfair trade practices overlap with unreasonable restriction of trade or private monopolisation. A claimant may file a lawsuit for formal injunction or a petition for preliminary injunction under Article 24 of the Antimonopoly Act.

The JFTC provides its opinion with respect to the application of the Antimonopoly Act and other necessary matters if an action for an injunction has been filed with a judicial court under Article 24 of the Antimonopoly Act.

Formal Injunction

In the case of a formal injunction, the procedure constitutes a formal lawsuit on the merits and the court must hold hearings attended by both parties, at which they need to submit briefs and evidence. Witness examinations may be held during the course of the proceedings. It generally takes more than a year to complete the proceedings. In order to avoid an abuse of right to injunction, the court may order the plaintiff to furnish an adequate security deposit at the request of the defendant.

Preliminary Injunction

When seeking a preliminary injunction, the court adopts expeditious procedures under the Civil Preservation Act. However, it is still necessary for the court to hold hearings where the other party may submit its opinion, in principle, and it may take several months to obtain a preliminary injunction order. A petitioner must demonstrate that there is a “necessity” for the preliminary injunction, in addition to the claims to be protected, based on prima facie evidence. A petitioner will also be required to furnish a security deposit before obtaining a preliminary injunction order. If a petitioner who obtained a preliminary injunction order fails in the subsequent formal lawsuit, the respondent/defendant may file a claim for compensation for damages arising from the illegal execution of the preliminary injunction order.

Methods of alternative dispute resolution are available in Japan, but no mandated methods are applicable to private antitrust claims.

For instance, mediations, particularly civil mediation proceedings before the court, are frequently used as a method of alternative dispute resolution in Japan and could be used for antitrust claims as well. Mediation committee members, as opposed to professional judges, are in charge of handling civil mediation proceedings and facilitating settlement discussions between the parties. Both parties may terminate the proceedings at any time. Once the parties agree to the settlement terms, such terms have the same effect as a final and binding judgment rendered by a court through a formal lawsuit.

Under the Arbitration Act of Japan, a civil dispute that may be resolved by settlement between the parties is arbitrable. A private antitrust dispute is also arbitrable under such law. Japanese courts are expected to enforce an arbitration agreement even for an antitrust dispute. No legislation or court precedents have provided exceptions to such enforcement to date.

In Japan, there is no legislation prohibiting or specifically restricting litigation funding. Accordingly, a plaintiff may file a private antitrust claim with third-party funding.

However, it may be considered as a violation of the Attorneys Act if, in providing litigation funding, a third party who is not qualified as a Japanese attorney (bengoshi) provides legal advice to the plaintiff and takes a share of any proceeds from the lawsuit. The Attorneys Act also prohibits a person from acting as an intermediary between clients and attorneys for the purpose of obtaining remuneration from matter referrals.

Costs are awarded on a limited basis in court judgments. In general, a prevailing party can recover the court costs, which include filing fees and travel expenses and/or a per diem paid to witnesses and interpreters. If it is difficult to determine the prevailing party, the court may order both parties to share the burden of the court costs based on certain ratios decided at its sole discretion.

Japanese courts do not, in principle, grant prevailing parties the right to recover their attorney’s fees. However, in cases where a claimant is seeking compensation for damages based on a tortious act, the court generally awards approximately 10% of their attorney’s fee as part of the damages.

Under Japanese civil proceedings, it is not possible for a party to apply to the court for an order granting security for its costs.

A claimant has the right to file an appeal against a district court judgment with a high court having jurisdiction over the case (koso appeal). It is also possible to file an appeal against a high court judgment with the Supreme Court (jokoku appeal). A jokoku appeal to the Supreme Court can be made on limited grounds as stipulated under the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Code of Civil Procedure provides no specific grounds for an appeal to a high court (koso appeal) but the grounds could include errors in fact-finding as well as in the application of the law in the judgment. An appeal to the Supreme Court (jokoku appeal) can be made on the ground that the high court judgment contains a violation of the Constitution, or on the ground that some of the procedures in the lower court were material illegalities as set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure.

In addition, parties may file a “petition for admission of a jokoku appeal” and the Supreme Court may accept the petition if it deems that the case involves an important issue.

As key trends in the antitrust litigation space in Japan, there are no future legislative developments in the area of civil antitrust litigation.

On the other hand, as discussed in Sections 1.1 Current Framework for Antitrust Litigation and 1.2 Recent Developments, we have recently seen more court cases where: (i) claimants have sought compensation for damages arising from “unfair trade practice,” such as abuse of a superior bargaining position prohibited by the Antimonopoly Act; and (ii) claimants have filed a petition for injunction under Article 24 of the Antimonopoly Act based on allegations that their interests are infringed, or are likely to be infringed, by certain unfair trade practices.

Until recently, most of the disputes involving potential antitrust claims in Japan appear to have been settled by negotiation between the parties prior to bringing the claims to court. However, claimants now appear to be proactively filing claims in court to gain more favourable settlements, or with the view that the court may render a decision in their favour or find counterparties to be in violation of the Antimonopoly Act. Following the increase in the number of antitrust cases, the judges of the commercial affairs department of the Tokyo District Court appear to have accumulated extensive experience in handling antitrust litigation.

In view of the above, this trend can be expected to continue, and it has therefore become increasingly important for corporate clients to be prepared to retain litigators with plenty of experience handling disputes involving matters of antitrust/competition law.