case study 1 ella

Competition Law Enforcement: Key Case Studies

Competition law enforcement has been instrumental in promoting fair market practices, with landmark cases serving as pivotal precedents for shaping the legal and regulatory landscape. Notable examples include Microsoft's antitrust saga, in which the company was accused of abusing its monopoly power by bundling its Internet Explorer web browser with its Windows operating system. The Google Shopping case is another prominent example, where the European Commission fined Google €2.42 billion for breaching EU antitrust rules by favoring its own shopping service over rivals. These cases, along with cartel conduct, abuse of dominance, and merger reviews in various regions, have contributed substantially to the development of competition law enforcement. Further examination of these cases and others reveals the complexities and nuances of competition law enforcement in action.

Table of Contents

Microsoft's Antitrust Saga

As the digital landscape was rapidly evolving in the 1990s, Microsoft's dominance in the software industry began to raise eyebrows among regulators and competitors alike. The company's market share and aggressive business practices sparked concerns about potential abuse of its monopoly leverage. Regulatory oversight bodies, such as the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), initiated investigations into Microsoft's conduct, focusing on its bundling of software products and alleged exclusionary behavior.

The DOJ filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft in 1998, accusing the company of violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The case centered on Microsoft's practice of bundling its Internet Explorer web browser with its Windows operating system, thereby stifling competition from rival browser providers. The court ultimately ruled that Microsoft had engaged in anticompetitive behavior, ordering the company to split into two separate entities. While the breakup was later overturned on appeal, the case marked a significant milestone in the enforcement of competition law, highlighting the need for robust regulatory oversight to prevent the misuse of monopoly leverage.

The Google Shopping Case

The Google Shopping Case is a landmark competition law enforcement action that highlights the European Commission's scrutiny of digital platforms. In 2017, the Commission levied a record-breaking fine of €2.42 billion against Google for breaching EU antitrust rules, specifically for illegally promoting its own shopping service over those of competitors. This case centers on allegations of self-preferencing practices that distorted the online shopping market, ultimately hindering consumer choice and innovation.

Antitrust Allegations Raised

Regulatory scrutiny has been a recurring theme in Google's operational landscape, and the Google Shopping case is a seminal example of this phenomenon. The European Commission's antitrust allegations against Google underscore the importance of regulatory oversight in ensuring a level playing field in the digital marketplace. The Commission's investigation, launched in 2010, centered on allegations that Google had abused its dominant position in the search engine market by favoring its own comparison shopping service, Google Shopping, over rival services.

Industry scrutiny has been intense, with competitors and consumer groups arguing that Google's practices stifled innovation and hindered competition. The Commission's probe revealed that Google had systematically demoted rival comparison shopping services in its search results, while promoting its own service. This alleged conduct, the Commission argued, had a significant impact on the market, reducing traffic to rival services and depriving them of the opportunity to compete on equal terms. The Google Shopping case highlights the need for effective regulatory oversight to prevent dominant firms from abusing their market power and undermining competition.

Illegal Self-Promotion Practices

Google's self-promotion practices in the Google Shopping case have been a focal point of the European Commission's antitrust allegations. The Commission accused Google of favoring its own comparison shopping service, Google Shopping, over those of its competitors. This self-preferencing led to the demotion of rival services in search results, ultimately stifling competition. In addition, Google's practices were found to be misleading, as they included fake reviews and ratings that artificially boosted its own shopping service. Additionally, Google's advertising practices were deemed misleading, as they failed to clearly distinguish between organic search results and paid advertisements. These practices not only harmed competitors but also misled consumers, who were unable to make informed purchasing decisions. The Commission's investigation revealed that Google's self-promotion tactics had a significant impact on the market, leading to a substantial reduction in traffic to rival services. This case highlights the importance of ensuring that dominant companies do not abuse their market position through illegal self-promotion practices.

Record-Breaking Fine Imposed

In a landmark decision, the European Commission imposed a record-breaking fine of €2.42 billion on Google for breaching EU antitrust rules, marking one of the largest penalties ever levied on a single company. This decision followed a lengthy investigation into Google's alleged abuse of dominance in the online shopping market, where it was found to have unfairly promoted its own comparison shopping service, Google Shopping, over rival services.

The fine calculation was based on the gravity and duration of the infringement, as well as Google's revenue from its comparison shopping service. The European Commission considered the fine necessary to deter future anti-competitive behavior and restore fair competition in the online shopping market. This decision demonstrates the European Commission's commitment to regulatory scrutiny, ensuring that dominant companies do not abuse their market position to stifle competition. The Google Shopping case serves as a precedent for future antitrust enforcement, emphasizing the importance of fair competition in the digital economy.

Cartel Conduct in Europe

In the European competition law enforcement landscape, cartel conduct remains a significant concern, with the European Commission imposing substantial fines on companies found to have engaged in anti-competitive behavior. Notable price fixing cases have led to hefty penalties, highlighting the importance of effective leniency programs in detecting and deterring such conduct. The European Commission's approach to cartel enforcement has been shaped by its experience with high-profile cases, informing its strategies for identifying and punishing cartel activities.

European Cartel Fines

How effectively have European antitrust authorities been fining cartel participants, and what trends can be discerned from the sanctions imposed? The European Commission has been instrumental in cracking down on cartel conduct, imposing significant fines on companies found to be engaging in anti-competitive behavior. In recent years, the Commission has levied record-breaking fines, with some exceeding €1 billion.

In terms of fine calculation methods, the Commission typically considers factors such as the gravity and duration of the infringement, as well as the company's turnover. Additionally, the Commission may also take into account any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, such as cooperation with the investigation or obstruction of justice. Cartel investigations have revealed that companies often engage in sophisticated schemes to conceal their anti-competitive activities, underscoring the need for robust enforcement measures.

The Commission's approach to fining cartel participants has been shaped by its desire to deter similar conduct in the future. By imposing significant financial penalties, the Commission aims to create a strong incentive for companies to comply with competition law. In this respect, the trend towards increasingly severe fines is likely to continue, serving as a powerful deterrent to would-be cartel participants.

Price Fixing Cases

The European Commission's vigorous enforcement of competition law has led to the uncovering of numerous price fixing cases, underscoring the prevalence of cartel conduct in various industries across Europe. These cases involve anti-competitive agreements among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, or allocate markets, ultimately harming consumers and distorting competition.

These cases demonstrate the Commission's commitment to detecting and prosecuting cartel conduct, including bid rigging and market allocation schemes. By cracking down on such anti-competitive practices, the Commission aims to promote fair competition and protect consumers' interests. The Commission's enforcement actions serve as a deterrent to companies considering engaging in cartel conduct, promoting a level playing field across European markets.

Leniency Programs

A cornerstone of the European Commission's efforts to combat cartel conduct is its leniency program, which offers incentives to companies that self-report and cooperate with investigations. This program has been instrumental in detecting and prosecuting cartel cases, as it encourages companies to come forward and disclose their involvement in anti-competitive activities.

The leniency program provides significant benefits to companies that cooperate, including full immunity from fines for the first company to report a cartel and reduced fines for subsequent cooperators. The program's amnesty effectiveness is evident in the high number of cartel cases uncovered through self-reporting. In fact, the majority of cartel cases pursued by the European Commission have been initiated through leniency applications.

The leniency benefits are conditional upon the company's continuous cooperation throughout the investigation. Companies must provide detailed information about the cartel, including its scope, duration, and participants, as well as any evidence in their possession. The program's success can be attributed to its ability to create a strong incentive for companies to self-report and cooperate, thereby facilitating the detection and prosecution of cartel conduct.

Abuse of Dominance in Asia

Across Asia, competition authorities have been grappling with the complex issue of abuse of dominance, wherein a single entity or a group of entities exploit their market power to stifle competition and harm consumers. This phenomenon is particularly prevalent in markets with high concentration levels, where a single firm or a few firms wield significant market power.

In recent years, regulatory frameworks in Asia have evolved to address this issue. For instance, the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) has been actively enforcing Section 47 of the Competition Act, which prohibits abuse of dominance. Similarly, the Japanese Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) has been cracking down on abuse of superior bargaining position, which is a variant of abuse of dominance. In China, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) has been enforcing the Anti-Monopoly Law, which prohibits abuse of dominance. These regulatory frameworks have been instrumental in curbing abuses of market power and promoting competition in Asian markets.

Anti-Competitive Mergers Blocked

Scores of proposed mergers and acquisitions in Asia have been thwarted by competition authorities in recent years, citing concerns that these deals would substantially lessen competition in the relevant markets. These deal vetoes demonstrate the importance of merger reviews in maintaining a competitive landscape.

In several instances, the mergers were blocked due to concerns about the creation of dominant players, which would have led to reduced competition and innovation. For example, in the telecommunications sector, a proposed merger between two major players was vetoed due to fears that it would result in a dominant entity controlling a significant market share. Similarly, in the e-commerce space, a deal was rejected as it would have led to the creation of a dominant player with significant market power.

These decisions highlight the role of competition authorities in ensuring that mergers and acquisitions do not harm competition. By conducting thorough merger reviews, these authorities can identify potential competitive concerns and take steps to address them, ultimately promoting a competitive and innovative business environment.

Landmark Cases in Emerging Markets

In the domain of competition law enforcement, emerging markets have witnessed several landmark cases that have shaped the regulatory landscape and sent a strong message to businesses operating in these jurisdictions. These cases have addressed complex issues, such as market dynamics and regulatory hurdles, and have had a significant impact on the business environment.

One notable example is the case of Brazil's Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) vs. Petrobras, which addressed allegations of anticompetitive practices in the fuel market. The case led to significant changes in the market dynamics of the Brazilian fuel sector, with CADE imposing substantial fines and requiring Petrobras to divest assets.

Another example is the case of India's Competition Commission of India (CCI) vs. Google, which involved allegations of abuse of dominance in the search engine market. The CCI's decision sent a strong message to digital platforms operating in India, emphasizing the significance of compliance with competition regulations.

These landmark cases demonstrate the commitment of emerging market regulators to enforcing competition laws and promoting fair market practices. They also serve as crucial precedents, shaping the regulatory landscape and influencing market dynamics in these jurisdictions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the consequences of non-compliance with competition law.

Non-compliance with competition law can result in severe consequences, including substantial fines imposed by regulatory authorities, as well as reputation damage that can lead to long-term financial losses and erosion of stakeholder trust.

How Do Authorities Detect Cartel Conduct in Various Industries?

Authorities detect cartel conduct through a combination of cartel markers, such as unusual pricing patterns, and industry profiling, which involves analyzing market structures and firm behaviors to identify potential collusive activities.

Can Individuals Be Held Liable for Antitrust Violations?

In antitrust law, individuals can be held liable for violations, emphasizing personal accountability. Criminal prosecutions are employed to deter and punish culpable individuals, as seen in cases where executives are fined or imprisoned for cartel participation or other anticompetitive conduct.

What Role Do Economics Play in Competition Law Enforcement?

In competition law enforcement, economics plays a crucial role through economic analysis, which informs merger reviews and antitrust investigations, providing a framework to assess market dynamics, competitive effects, and potential harm to consumers.

Are Competition Authorities Effective in Promoting Consumer Welfare?

Competition authorities' effectiveness in promoting consumer welfare is contingent upon their ability to mitigate market power abuse and resist regulatory capture, ensuring that enforcement decisions prioritize consumer interests over corporate influence.

UNLOCK YOUR COPY

Best of Walmart’s Labor Day sale: Up to 78% off a knife set, Levi’s and more

• Share this —

• Watch Full Episodes
• Read With Jenna
• Inspirational
• Relationships
• TODAY Table
• Newsletters
• Start TODAY
• Shop TODAY Awards
• Citi Concert Series
• Listen All Day

Follow today

More Brands

• On The Show
• TODAY Plaza

New report says restricting social media access can help kids ... but only sometimes

A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine released Wednesday grapples with the questions: Is social media harming teenagers? And what can parents, and the government, do about it? 

The answers are murky.

The authors surveyed hundreds of studies across more than a decade and came to complicated, occasionally contradictory, conclusions. 

On one hand, they found there isn’t enough population data to specifically blame social media for changes in adolescent health. On the other hand, as shown in study after study cited by the report, social media has the clear potential to hurt the health of teenagers, and in situations where a teenager is already experiencing difficulties like a mental health crisis, social media tends to make it worse. 

What is needed: more research and more coordination.

“There is much we still don’t know, but our report lays out a clear path forward for both pursuing the biggest unanswered questions about youth health and social media, and taking steps that can minimize the risk to young people using social media now,” Sandro Galea, dean of the Boston University School of Public Health and chair of the committee behind the report, said in a news release.

In adolescents, overly restrictive and controlling parental rules, like confiscating a phone for punishment, are often associated with that teenager taking more risks online.

“Our recommendations call on social media companies, Congress, federal agencies, and others to make changes that will protect and benefit young people who use social media,” he added.

Parents hoping for clear guidelines will have to keep waiting.

“The committee sympathizes with some parents’ desire for authoritative prescription on teenagers’ social media use but is also mindful of overreaching the data,” the report concludes. “Venturing hard and fast rules regarding teenagers’ use of social media, rules that the data cannot support, is not something this committee can do.”

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine is an advisory group tasked by Congress with providing guidance on science-related issues.

But its report suggests that parents are closer than ever to arriving at effective strategies for navigating their families through the social media landscape. In the future, calculating the harms and potential benefits of social media will have to take place on a case-by-case basis, it suggests, taking into account factors that will vary widely from teenager to teenager and family to family. 

For instance, the report says that while middle school girls have been found to experience social anxiety, body dissatisfaction and depression when they compared themselves with others on social media, factors such as media literacy, supportive parents and a positive school environment lessened those negative effects.  

The ways social media is used seem to make a difference. When a teenager passively scrolls, as opposed to actively posting, that’s connected by many studies to low life satisfaction and feelings of sadness. It may be that showcasing a hobby or an interest on social media doesn’t produce the same harms. 

But those rates differ by demographic group: Black, non-Hispanic participants in one study reported more negative moods during active social media use, suggesting that the potential benefits of posting on social media are not the same for teenagers of all backgrounds.

And age affects how well certain strategies work. In younger children (12 and under), a family policy that restricts social media except when it’s actively guided by a parent seems to reduce the risk of problematic use and inappropriate behavior online. But in adolescents (13 and older), overly restrictive and controlling parental rules, like confiscating a phone for punishment, are often associated with that teenager taking more risks online. 

“Restrictions on media use are useful for young children,” the authors write, “while increased communication and awareness are more suitable and helpful for teenagers.”

Faced with an urgent need to “create a more transparent industry and a better-informed consumer of social media,” the report calls on companies and regulators to establish international standards, such as clear ways for companies to share data with researchers and accepted best practices to avoid proven harms where possible. 

It recommends that the International Organization for Standardization — a body that sets global rules in areas such as manufacturing and food safety — be tasked with creating a new system, one that could be used by federal and international agencies to track and evaluate social media companies and the algorithms they build. And it asks for funding from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other agencies to pay for the sort of large, long-term studies that have in the past identified major public health crises. 

This story was first published on NBCNews.com.

Jacob Ward, a technology correspondent for NBC News, is a 2018-19 Berggruen Fellow at Stanford University’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, where he is writing a book about how artificial intelligence will shape human behavior. 

Kamala Harris was with her great-nieces Amara and Leela Ajagu — when she learned Joe Biden dropped out

All about Tim Walz's kids: Meet Hope and Gus

Kamala Harris does have kids: Meet her two stepchildren, Cole and Ella

Why this teacher eats lunch with his students in the cafeteria every day

Toby Keith’s 3 kids: All about Shelley, Krystal and Stelen

Pop culture.

She spread her late sister's ashes. Then a sign appeared

What Mariah Carey has said about her parents, Alfred and Patricia

140 'Would You Rather' questions for kids to get them thinking

British mom defends letting her 15-year-old travel through Europe without an adult

92 grandma names and nicknames for the grandmother in your life

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Drivers of technological needs: Delphi, Government Office for Science

This case study, focusing on the Government Office for Science, illustrates how the office used the Delphi tool from the Futures Toolkit.

Drivers of technological needs project: Delphi

This case study used a modified Delphi process and involved a large group of experts to identify technical capabilities and assess their importance to achieving the strategic goals.

Read other futures tools and methods case studies .

Updates to this page

Sign up for emails or print this page, related content, is this page useful.

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .

Jump to navigation

• About Child Trauma
• Trauma Types
• Populations at Risk
• Trauma Treatments
• Screening and Assessment
• Psychological First Aid and SPR
• Core Curriculum on Childhood Trauma
• Trauma-Informed Systems
• Culture and Trauma
• Families and Trauma
• Family-Youth-Provider-Partnerships
• Secondary Traumatic Stress
• Trauma-Informed Organizational Assessment
• All NCTSN Resources
• Información en Español
• Public Awareness
• Structure and Governance
• Network Members
• Strategic Partnerships
• Policy Issues
• Position Statements
• About This Website

GET HELP NOW

Core Curriculum on Childhood Trauma: Ella Case Study For Applying the 12 Core Concepts

You are here.

Resource Description

Guides users in applying the 12 Core Concepts to "real-world" case material, with the goal of strengthening trauma-informed professionalism for a broad range of audiences. 

• Printer-friendly version

Related Resources

The 12 core concepts: concepts for understanding traumatic stress responses in children and families.

Outlines and describes The 12 Core Concepts: Concepts for Understanding Traumatic Stress Responses in Children and Families .

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

fentanyl crisis FACTS...LEARN MORE

Clean For The Day New For Tomorrow

301-367-7190

Resiliency Theory and Crisis Theory: The Case of Ella Schultz

Posted: November 1st, 2022

Map the client’s crisis using the five stages of the crisis.

Stage 1 :  Ella had a seemingly stable life up until age 13, at which time her father lost his IT job. The case information indicates that this stressful event was the catalyst that began a three-year progression of abuse for Ella. Ella has now entered the hazardous stage, being verbally and eventually physically abused at the hands of her father. This abuse was unanticipated and unexpected, leaving Ella the victim of a situational crisis. From a developmental standpoint, Ella experienced this abuse throughout her adolescence, which is more common in developmental crises, according to Turner (2017).  

Stage 2 : Ella’s reaction(s) and inner turmoil in the vulnerable state gradually manifest because of its sudden onset in the home. As Ella’s father progressively tries to “cope” with his employment situation/life by drinking more, there is a progression/increase in the frequency and severity of abuse towards Ella. Ella’s reactions are also becoming progressive in that she is showing signs of anger, fear, and cognitive or perceptual confusion (p. 120). An illustration of this could be Ella’s grades dropping from a “B” to a “D” average. Also, Ella, after receiving stitches from a glass thrown at her by her father, lies to the doctor about how it happened.   

Stage 3 : “Finally, after the stitches, Ella confronted her mom with her father present (p. 2). Ella’s father then proceeds to physically attack Ella and her mother, a traumatic event that Ella’s mother, the next day, denies ever happened, thus leaving Ella without any parental safety, support, and completely vulnerable. This is the event, in my opinion, is Ella’s “tipping point” or precipitating factor.

Stage 4 : “The state of active crisis describes the disequilibrium that occurs once an individual’s previous coping mechanisms have broken down” (Turner, 2017, p. 120). Feeling unprotected by both parents, Ella is “moved” into this primal “fight or flight” response, running away from home soon thereafter and becoming homeless.

Stage 5: Ella’s reintegration begins when she is court-ordered to live in a group home after 13 months of being homeless and multiple arrests (primarily to survive). Ella begins the crisis resolution process, showing its first signs as Ella speaks of wanting to reconnect with her mother. This group home is a safe place that will now allow Ella to connect with the resources she will need to begin processing all the trauma she has endured since the “before times.”

Client’s Assets and Resources

Ella has proven herself to be a resilient, resourceful, survivor. Being forced from her home, as I see it, Ella had no plan of what was to come next. Yet, she finds this encampment group and quickly surrounds herself with other women for friendship, survival, and protection. Ella does not succumb to the temptation of substance abuse and breaks the law only as a means of survival. She also has a keen self-awareness of wanting to reconnect with her mother while remaining friends with her “extended family” she lived with on the streets.

Intervention

As a social worker, “timing” is of the utmost importance for someone in Ella’s situation. The social worker “engages quickly and explores sensitive and potentially difficult areas, such as abuse and neglect” (Turner, 2017, p. 123.) The goal of the intervention is to alleviate Ella’s symptoms (fear, anxiety, trauma, etc.) and help her return to a state of equilibrium; however, her immediate needs such as a sense of safety, food, shelter, and connection to the appropriate therapeutic resources. Trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) and cognitive processing therapy (CPT) will help Ella “untangle” the thoughts and feelings she may be having about herself, as well as CPT that will help Ella’s resiliency grow stronger as she “challenges” any hurtful beliefs related to the myriad of the traumas she has survived. I would have Ella describe what life was like in the “before times,” affirming her in all she has made it thru. I would also like to know more about what reconnecting with her mother would look like and the expectations she has for her/their future relationship.  

Crisis Theory and Resiliency Theory

Resiliency and crisis theories work well together because they share the common denominators of adversity and risk exposure. In addition, both therapies work by helping to bring to light the strengths and resources of the client. According to Smith-Osborne (2007), these strengths/resources are comprised of “hardiness, coherence, social competence and self-efficacy” (p.157), among others. Finally, both theories are designed to inform the social worker that “they are not their past,” affirming the client to take stock of all the “hidden” gifts, strengths, grit, and talents.

References:

Smith-Osborne, A. (2007). Life span and resiliency theory: A critical review. Advances in Social Work, 8 (1), 152-168.

Turner, F. (Ed.).(2017). Social work treatment: Interlocking theoretical approaches (6 th ed., pp. 3-13). Oxford University Press. 

 - Chapter 7, “Social Work Theory and Practice for Crisis, Disaster, and Trauma” (pp. 117-130)

Analysis of Theory Worksheet

Use this worksheet to help you apply a theory as a lens to the case study for your assignments. Fill in the column on the right with all applicable information, and then consider it a reference for how to apply the theory. You must submit this worksheet, where indicated, in applicable assignments. Then you will compile the worksheet for your Theories Study Guide (that you can use for the licensure exam) at the end of the course.

Sample Modal

Your text will go here. We need information from you to replace this content. Please send us some information so we can update the text for you. Your text will go here. We need information from you to replace this content. Please send us some information so we can update the text for you. Your text will go here. We need information from you to replace this content. Please send us some information so we can update the text for you. Your text will go here. We need information from you to replace this content.

Join Our Mailing List!

Submit your testimonial.

(Javascript must be enabled to submit the form.)