Analysis Group Again Recognized Among the Leading Global Economics Consultancies by Global Competition Review

February 3, 2020

Analysis Group, one of the largest international economics consulting firms, has again been recognized as a leader on the Global Competition Review (GCR) Economics 21. The annual ranking highlights top firms measured by size of practice, reputation, and work on impactful competition matters over the past year. In the 2020 rankings, Analysis Group placed in the top three for number of litigation matters, complex mergers, and government investigations in which the firm was involved. Analysis Group was also highlighted as having one of the largest practices, with 265 competition economists across its offices worldwide.

“Markets are undergoing significant change in virtually every jurisdiction around the world, resulting in novel antitrust questions being raised,” said Martha S. Samuelson, CEO and Chairman of Analysis Group. “It’s quite an exciting time to be a competition economist, and our recognition in the Economics 21 reflects the important work we are doing to help our clients as they navigate complex issues in a shifting environment.”

Analysis Group played a significant role in many of the past year’s noteworthy antitrust cases around the world. GCR cited several examples of the firm’s work on complex issues involving questions of market dominance, litigation, and damages, including in the following:

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) Digital Platforms Inquiry

  • An Analysis Group team supported its academic affiliate Professor Catherine Tucker of the MIT Sloan School of Management, a leading authority on digital markets and advertising, in preparing three reports for the ACCC’s inquiry into digital platforms. Professor Tucker’s reports addressed the nature of competition in digital advertising and data, social media, and the distribution of news and information.                  

Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. and FTC v. Qualcomm

  • Analysis Group teams supported several of the firm’s academic affiliates on behalf of Qualcomm in its defense against separate allegations by Apple and the FTC, and in its countersuit against Apple. Apple and the FTC claimed that Qualcomm acted anticompetitively in both its licensing business and its chip business, and used its market power in each to reinforce its market position in the other. Analysis Group affiliates who submitted testimony included Nobel Laureate Dr. Oliver Hart, the Lewis P. and Linda L. Geyser University Professor at Harvard University; Dr. Christopher Knittel, the George P. Shultz Professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management; Professor Jeffrey Prince, the Harold A. Poling Chair in Strategic Management at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business; and Dr. Edward Snyder, the William S. Beinecke Professor of Economics and Management, and former Dean, of the Yale School of Management. In Qualcomm’s widely reported settlement with Apple, the parties ultimately agreed to dismiss their suits against each other, while the FTC matter is ongoing.

In re: Asacol Antitrust Litigation

  • Analysis Group supported Allergan in its defense of the Asacol antitrust litigation pertaining to allegations of delayed market entry of a generic pharmaceutical. Analysis Group Managing Principal Bruce Strombom provided testimony that addressed questions about the nature of uninjured class members, changes in the competitive environment that that may lead consumers to be uninjured, and the estimated share of uninjured class members. The class certification was overturned on appeal in what may prove to be a watershed ruling for the pharmaceutical industry.

Panjing Dongxing Oil Well Measure Service Co. Ltd. v. PetroChina Inc.

  • Analysis Group teams from its US and Beijing offices jointly supported Panjing, the plaintiff, in a monopolization, abuse of market power, and refusal to deal case brought before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The firm supported Adjunct Professor Wei Tan of Johns Hopkins University, who filed two reports opining that the defendant had the power to dictate pricing and contract terms over the plaintiff, a conclusion further supported by a monopsony test and agreed by the court.