July 23, 2025
Japan Fair Trade Commission
Today, I would like to talk about the following matters: (1) JFTC’s Anniversary of Establishment and (2) Summary of the 230th Antimonopoly Meeting.
JFTC’s Anniversary of Establishment
July 20 marked the anniversary of the establishment of the JFTC. Japan’s Antimonopoly Act was promulgated 78 years ago, on April 14, 1947, and came into force on July 20 of the same year. The enforcement of the Act also marked the official launch of the JFTC. For this reason, we regard July 20—the enforcement date of the Act—as the JFTC’s anniversary of establishment.
Japan’s Antimonopoly Act was enacted in the postwar period as part of efforts to democratize the economy, including the dissolution of the zaibatsu conglomerates, and served as a legal foundation to support those reforms. At the time of its enforcement, only two countries—Canada and the United States—had competition laws in place. Accordingly, Japan’s Antimonopoly Act is the third oldest competition law in the world.
Looking at the global spread of competition laws over time, there were only about 25 countries and regions with such laws in place as of 1990. By 2020, however, that number had grown to over 130. Given this significant expansion, it is fair to say that competition law—and the principles underpinning it—has become a global standard in today’s world.
In an era where economic, political, and international conditions are changing rapidly, the JFTC recognizes the continued importance of earning public understanding and support for its various activities. To that end, we are committed to ongoing efforts across all areas of our responsibilities. This includes not only the appropriate enforcement of existing laws under our jurisdiction, but also the steady implementation of new legislation such as the recently enacted the Mobile Software Competition Act and the amended Subcontract Act. We will also continue to engage in policy proposals, respond to consultations from businesses and stakeholders, and conduct various publicity activities and advocacy initiatives.
By steadily advancing these efforts one by one, we hope to lay a solid foundation that will enable us to mark our 80th—and eventually our 100th—anniversary in the years ahead.
Summary of the 230th Antimonopoly Meeting
The 230th Antimonopoly Meeting was held on June 27, 2025.
The Antimonopoly Meeting has been held by the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) since November 1968, with the aim of gathering opinions from various segments of the public and promoting their understanding of the implementation of the Antimonopoly Act, in order to effectively and appropriately advance competition policy in response to changes in Japan’s economy.
This time, the General Secretariat explained three agenda items. I would now like to share some of the main comments and opinions expressed on each item, as summarized in the meeting outline distributed today.
Regarding the first item, “the Market Study on Ride-Hailing Applications in Japan,” we received comments and questions such as:
“With the introduction of Japan’s ride-sharing system, the ways taxis are used and how services are provided is expected to change. In that context, I hope the JFTC will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that competition among service providers does not result in a market environment that users may perceive as unfair. Also, what kinds of opinions were expressed by the consumer organizations that were interviewed for this study?”
In response, we explained that there were, "For example, comments include concerns that parents with small children often use ride-hailing apps, but cannot dispatch taxis to station fronts, making transfers inconvenient when pick up occurs farther away. Another concern raised was whether consumers truly understand and accept the additional charges—up to 980 yen— that may be applied for 'priority dispatch' services on top of the regular taxi fare."
Regarding the second item, “Efforts to Enhance Antimonopoly Act Compliance in Companies,” stated:
“In my experience as a legal practitioner, I have observed considerable variation in the attitudes of corporate top management toward compliance. In some cases, executives question whether it is even necessary for them to comment on compliance issues—not only with regard to the Antimonopoly Act but also to compliance in general. When this occurs, it can be difficult for in-house compliance or legal staff to urge further engagement from leadership. In this regard, including a reference to top management’s involvement in the Guide for the Design and Implementation of an Effective Antimonopoly Act Compliance Program is extremely helpful, as it gives staff a basis to say, ‘This is also written in the JFTC’s compliance guide.’ I would greatly appreciate it if the JFTC would continue to promote top management’s commitment and involvement in ensuring fair business practices under the Antimonopoly Act, as well as under laws such as the Freelance Act and the Fair Transactions Act.”
Regarding the third item, "Market Study Report on Business Practices in the Food Supply Chain," one participant commented:
“Among the five business practices explained, I was once again reminded of the importance of advancing improvements—particularly those related to the so-called ‘one-third rule’—in tandem with raising consumer awareness. These business practices not only contribute to food loss, but also appear to be one of the underlying causes of the logistics challenges facing the industry, such as delivery inefficiencies. Rather than pursuing individual violations, I believe industry-wide measures are needed to fundamentally improve longstanding practices that remain deeply rooted in the sector. I would like to know how relevant industry associations have responded to the findings of this study and whether there are any plans for action going forward.”
In response, we explained “While some industry associations have taken steps to revise the one-third rule—such as relaxing its strict application or replacing it with a more flexible “one-half rule, there have also been cases in which stricter requirements, such as a “one-fourth rule” or “one-fifth rule,” have been imposed. We also noted that some industry participants expressed the view that publishing the report would help promote improvements in trading practices across the supply chain.”
The JFTC will continue to promote competition policy effectively and appropriately based on the opinions above.
(Tentative translation)
