Competition and antitrust litigation.
Cartel damages, abuse of dominance, and regulatory appeals where the documentary record must be read alongside dense economic evidence.
Competition litigation sits at the intersection of law, economics, and evidence. Follow-on and standalone damages claims, abuse of dominance cases, and appeals against regulator decisions all require counsel to hold a detailed command of infringement decisions, market data, internal strategy documents, and competing expert economic analyses.
Crimson builds a Case Model that links the alleged conduct, the markets, the parties, and the economic evidence to the legal issues in dispute. Teams can test pass-on and overcharge theories against the factual record, keep multiple experts anchored to the same chronology and prepare pleadings and submissions with every assertion cited to its source.
Typical case file
- Infringement decisions and statements of objections
- Internal strategy and pricing documents
- Market data and transaction records
- Expert economic reports and models
- Regulator correspondence and file materials
- Pleadings and defenses
- Discovery from defendants and third parties
- Tribunal and court orders
The pressures
facing your team.
Decisions, discovery, and data
Infringement decisions run to hundreds of pages, and the documentary and economic evidence each add further layers. Counsel must understand each in the light of the others.
Economics anchored to facts
Overcharge, pass-on, and counterfactual analyses depend on factual assumptions about markets and conduct. Where those assumptions are contested, the documentary record decides.
Collective proceedings
Opt-out and opt-in class actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal and US courts add certification and distribution issues to an already complex merits case.
Parallel proceedings and jurisdictions
Teams must keep related claims in multiple jurisdictions, regulator investigations, and settlement processes consistent.
A Case Model built for
competition and antitrust litigation.
At upload, Crimson maps the parties, events, disputed facts, claims, defenses and evidence in your matter into a structured Case Model with full provenance. Every workflow below runs on that model.
Map conduct to markets and evidence
The Case Model links alleged conduct, the products and geographies affected, and the internal and third-party documents that evidence it.
Interrogate the infringement decision
Ask what the decision found on any point and locate the underlying evidence and the discovery that supports or undermines it.
Keep economic experts on the record
Check the factual assumptions in expert analyses against the chronology and identify where they rely on contested events or documents.
Compare positions across parties
In multi-defendant claims, compare each party's pleaded position and evidence on liability, causation and damages.
Draft with precision at scale
Produce first drafts of pleadings, expert instructions, and submissions grounded in the decision and discovery.
Questions Crimson answers,
cited to the page.
Illustrative questions from competition and antitrust litigation matters. Crimson traces each answer to the supporting document, page, and passage.
- Which internal documents discuss pricing coordination in the relevant period?
- Where does the Defendants' pass-on expert rely on assumptions contradicted by the discovery record?
- Build a chronology of the contacts between the parties identified in the decision.
- Summarize the parties' positions on market definition with the evidence each relies on.
- Identify every document referring to the counterfactual pricing scenario.
Common questions from competition & antitrust teams.
We designed Crimson around the factual and documentary record. It links expert reports and their factual assumptions to the underlying documents and chronology, so counsel can test whether the economic analysis is anchored to what the evidence actually shows. It does not replace the economists' models.
Also built for.
Class Actions and Group Litigation
Collective proceedings, GLOs, and mass claims where common issues must be proven across a complex and varied record.
Regulatory and White-Collar Investigations
Internal, regulatory, and criminal investigations where teams must establish knowledge, intent, and timing across individuals, entities, and years of communications.
Commercial Litigation
Contract, shareholder, joint venture, and supply-chain disputes where the answer is buried in years of correspondence.