MEXICO Law and Practice Contributed by: Agustín Aguilar López, Carlos García Cueva and Joana Karime Novia Ibarra, Aziz & Kaye Business Law
Mexico City, the State of Mexico, and parts of Coli - ma, Tamaulipas and Sinaloa. The CNA estimated the resulting consumer harm at over MXN13 billion and, rather than seeking a direct damages payment, is ask - ing the court to order the infringing companies to grant price discounts to all consumers in the affected areas as a form of redress. As with the pharmaceutical case, the outcome remains pending. Conversely, resolutions from foreign competition authorities have no legal effect before Mexico’s spe - cialised competition courts in damages claims. Nev - ertheless, in the absence of a sufficient number of domestic precedents, foreign competition authorities’ decisions have occasionally been used as a guide by Mexican competition authorities and courts. 2.4 Proof No judgments have been issued for damages against those who have violated the FECL. In a lawsuit seeking damages for anti-competitive conduct, the plaintiff must demonstrate the following: • the existence of anti-competitive conduct, as established by a decision of the competition authority; • that damages resulted from such unlawful conduct; and • the causal link – ie, it must be proven that the dam - age is a direct and immediate consequence of the unlawful conduct. In this regard, the decision of the competition authori - ty is conclusive regarding the unlawfulness of the con - duct, and no evidence to the contrary is admissible. However, from the authors’ perspective, there is no legal presumption applicable to damages claims. Therefore, the burden of proof lies entirely with the plaintiff, who must demonstrate, through direct evi - dence, the existence of harm and its direct and imme - diate connection to the unlawful conduct. 2.5 Pass-On Defence In Mexico the “pass-on” defence is regulated by the Federal Civil Code and the Federal Code of Civil Pro- cedures. These establish that the claimant for damag -
es must prove that the alleged damage was caused to them, that there is a causal link between the wrongful act and the damage, and that the damage is directly attributable to the party held liable by the competi - tion authority. Thus, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, and the standard of proof is high. For example, it is possible for the defendant to allege that the plaintiff did not suffer any damage because of an anti-competitive practice, having transferred the overcharge to the next link in the production chain. 3. Limitation Periods and the Duration of Litigation 3.1 Statute of Limitations Under both the reformed FECL and the prior regime, the competition authority has a ten-year statute of limitations to initiate investigations into anti-competi - tive conduct, counted from the date the conduct was committed or ceased to exist. In contrast, the period to initiate a damages claim is currently two years, starting from the date on which a decision by the competition authority is issued. Regarding class actions, the limitation period is of three and a half years, calculated from the date on which the damage occurred or, in cases where the damage has a continuing nature, the limitation period shall begin to run from the last day on which the dam - age occurs. Moreover, as mentioned in 1.1 Current Framework for Private Antitrust Litigation , under the reformed FECL, the initiation of a damages claim does not require the CNA’s decision to be final and unappealable. 3.2 Typical Length of Private Antitrust Litigation It has been argued that, in Mexico, there is no private antitrust litigation in the strict sense. Regarding “pub - lic” procedures, based on the authors’ experience, the processing of a case before the COFECE or the IFT – from the beginning of the investigation to the issuance of the resolution – took at least three-and-a-half years. However, it remains uncertain how long the newly cre -
99 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook