In 1928, the mathematician John von Neumann described for the first time a game-theoretical variant in which cooperation promises advantages for the partners even among competitors. In practice, unfortunately, many managers forget that such win-win situations of a “co-opetition strategy” quickly come at the expense of the buyers. For example, in a zero-sum game, one always has to pay the bill. And that’s usually the customer. In an age of hypercompetition, agreements between the competition seem so logical. The Chinese general Sun Tzu has already said: “Truly victorious, who does not fight.” Wrong!

As soon as competitors try to undermine competition and build a common dominant position through cooperation, there is a risk of severe sanctions. In addition to fines of up to 20% of an annual turnover, every economic offender has sustained image problems.

The members of an illegal cartel are nevertheless so sure, even after unmasking, that the details of their collusion will not suffice for an antitrust action. For example, investigations into the truck cartel began as early as 2011. But it was only in July 2016 that the European Commission was able to impose a fine of €2.9 billion on four truck manufacturers. Was it?

No! Although the coverage of the event has been sidelined for the time being in the face of a large number of new crisis issues, such antitrust violations shake up sustainably increased trust systems between suppliers and buyers.

The more a process is delayed, the greater the uncertainty

For example, in the case of the truck cartel, the uncomfortable feeling of being dragged over the table for years remains among the major customers of the car manufacturers and the logistics industry. Car rental companies and their shareholders will have to ask themselves how they can get their money back before a looming statute of limitations. But who pays for the loss of image of car rental companies compared to end customers who suspect the transfer of the costs of the antitrust infringement, especially for car rental companies with higher prices for good service? And then there are the banks that may demand a write-down of the balance sheets of car rental companies…

Whether we are talking about coffee, sugar, cement or truck cartels. In addition to the legal and economic impact, each of these events also represents a communication problem with a large number of critical stakeholders. They all want clear answers as to what happened, when, and where, and who is primarily responsible for it. Unanswered questions invite speculation. After all, there are also increased dependencies on individual brands. This can quickly link an abstract antitrust issue to the name of a single car rental company or logistics company. The same pattern can be found in many other antitrust infringements.

Trust must be regained and communicated

For truck manufacturers, an antitrust infringement poses a completely different communication challenge. In order to regain lost trust, after reviewing the compliance guidelines, it is necessary to proactively communicate their proof to car rental companies and logistics companies. Without the intensification of B2B communication, a producer may miss the moment when a major customer creates a blacklist for suppliers internally and searches for alternative suppliers. But the injured B2B customers should also use the incident as an opportunity to ideally develop an industry-wide standard for compliance, which is then also proactively communicated to end customers. It is only through an open and transparent approach to a problem known to the public that confidence can be regained in the long term.

Balancing business as usual and litigation PR

Although all parties are longing for a return to normality as soon as possible, an infringement of antitrust law is and remains an economic offence. In order to enforce claims for damages, the injured party must act confidently and purposefully. The abused market power of the suppliers regularly confronts the buyers with the question of how one can sue on the one hand and on the other hand still looks one’s eyes in the day-to-day life of the project. Since such constraints of communication do not lie solely with an individual company, but affect the entire industry, it is advisable to run the project communication of the injured customers via a central project organisation, similar to class actions. In addition to a law firm, an external press office is offering billions of dollars in back-up, which closely coordinates with the plaintiffs’ lawyers. A PR master plan coordinated between the plaintiffs supports different escalation and de-escalation scenarios, depending on the process tactics, in order to best represent the interests of the victims. Such litigation PR also supports the lawyers. Public pressure can speed up the enforcement of claims or the elaboration of an acceptable comparison. Individual media enquiries to damaged companies can be answered centrally.

Antitrust violations should never be interpreted as a purely legal or economic issue. Anyone who wants to gain the power of communication and interpretation in such cases should always ask yourself how to explain what has happened to the target groups concerned.