JAPAN Law and Practice Contributed by: Koki Yanagisawa, Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu
However, as discussed in 1.1 Current Framework for Private Antitrust Litigation and 1.2 Recent Develop- ments , Japan has 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 Antimo - nopoly Act based on allegations that their interests are infringed, or are likely to be infringed, by certain unfair trade practices. Of particular note is that the JFTC has markedly intensified its enforcement based on unfair trade practices in the digital platform sector during 2024–2025, beginning with the first-ever cease-and- desist order against a Big Tech company, followed by a dawn raid against a major online platform provider, among other actions. We expect that these actions by the JFTC may open the door to a situation in which more civil claims based on unfair trade practices in violation of the Antimonopoly Act are brought before the Japanese courts, in line with the JFTC’s trend toward active enforcement. 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 counter - parties to be in violation of the Antimonopoly Act. Fol - lowing 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 significant experience in handling dis - putes involving matters of antitrust/competition law.
tion for damages based on a tortious act, the court generally awards approximately 10% of the awarded amount of damages as their attorney’s fee. Under Japanese civil proceedings, it is not possible for a party to apply to the court for an order granting security for its costs.
12. Appeals 12.1 Basis of Appeal
A claimant has the right to file an appeal against a district court judgment with a high court having juris - diction 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 those in the application of the law in the judg - ment. An appeal to the Supreme Court ( jokoku appeal) can be made on the ground that the high court judg - ment 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 impor - tant issue.
13. Looking Forward 13.1 Legislative Trends and Other Developments
In terms of key trends in the antitrust litigation space in Japan, no legislative developments are anticipated in the area of civil antitrust litigation.
93 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook