The Effect of Monopolistic Pricing and Anti-Competitive

Behaviour on Consumers
Table of Contents
Problem Statement ..................................................................................................................... 3
Research Framework ................................................................................................................. 5
Research Objective ................................................................................................................ 5
Research Questions ................................................................................................................ 5
Research Methodology .......................................................................................................... 6
Literature Review....................................................................................................................... 8
Relevant Laws ........................................................................................................................ 8
The Competition Act, 2012 ................................................................................................ 8
The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 ............................................................................................. 9
The Consumer Rights Protection Act, 2009 .................................................................... 10
Cases of Monopolistic Practices in the Beverage Industry .................................................. 11
In Bangladesh: Price Hikes in the Bottled Water Industry .............................................. 11
In India: Monopolistic Pricing in the Soft Drinks Industry ............................................. 12
Cases of Monopolistic Practices in the Poultry/Food Industry ............................................ 13
In Bangladesh: Bangladesh Competition Commission and Kazi Farms ......................... 13
In USA: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation (USA) ...................................................... 15
In UE: European Union vs. Food Companies (Bonduelle, Coroos and Groupe CECAB)
.......................................................................................................................................... 16
Research Paper: Comparison of "EU and US Competition Policies" by the European
Parliament ............................................................................................................................ 17
Discussion & Data Analysis..................................................................................................... 20
Poultry and Meat .................................................................................................................. 24
Fresh Produce....................................................................................................................... 27
Grain and Bread Products .................................................................................................... 29
Dairy Products and Bottled Drinks ...................................................................................... 31
Consumer Awareness about Rights and Laws Regarding Unfair and Unethical Pricing .... 33
Results ...................................................................................................................................... 36
Question 1 ............................................................................................................................ 37
Question 2 ............................................................................................................................ 38
Question 3 ............................................................................................................................ 40
Question 4 ............................................................................................................................ 42
Scenario Analysis Using Current Legal Framework and Further Discussion ..................... 44
Recommendation ..................................................................................................................... 45

1
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 47
References ................................................................................................................................ 49
Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 53
Survey Form......................................................................................................................... 53

2
Problem Statement
In recent years, Bangladesh has experienced significant inflation in consumer goods,
particularly in the food and beverage industries. Monopolistic market arrangements and
unrestrained supply chain manipulation by middlemen have exacerbated this inflation. A small
number of prominent firms and a number of suppliers & traders are progressively asserting
dominance over the market for essential consumer goods in Bangladesh, leading to a
constrained competitive landscape. Furthermore, market manipulation, inadequate logistics,
and mishandled policies can make artificial supply shortages worse, which impacts price
stability. Bangladeshi customers are paying more because of the extent of monopolistic power
and the frequency of fictitious supply constraints. The aforementioned factors contribute to a
context in which consumers encounter elevated expenses for essential goods, thereby affecting
their purchasing capacity and overall standard of living. Monopolistic tactics and supply
manipulation combined will continue to put a burden on household budgets, raise poverty, and
impede economic progress if they are not addressed. This will result in social unrest and a rise
in inequality.

The goal is to achieve greater market transparency, reduce monopolistic practices, and stabilise
consumer goods' prices while ensuring that consumers can afford essential items without
compromising their basic needs. Challenges include potential resistance from established
monopolies, regulatory enforcement difficulties, and external economic pressures such as
global inflation and trade policies. It is essential to examine how other countries with similar
socioeconomic factors, such as Sri Lanka and India, are addressing inflationary pressures.
Learning from their strategies could provide valuable insights for formulating effective policies
in Bangladesh.

In Bangladesh, there are sufficient legislative measures to ensure a fair market; however, due
to weak institutional frameworks, corruption, and unfair business practices, large companies
and firms form unofficial coalitions and use monopolistic pricing practices to their own benefit,
harming consumers’ livelihoods and abnormally increasing the cost of living.

Several laws and acts actively contribute to the maintenance of the consumer goods and
services market in Bangladesh.

The 2012 Competition Act seeks to promote fair competition through repression of anti-
competitive practices, abuse of dominant positions, and anti-competitive agreements. It also

3
provides BCC with the power to investigate and penalise for the said actions in order to ensure
that business enterprises have a level playing field.

The Sale of Goods Act 1930 lays down the law regarding the rights and duties of buyers and
sellers concerning moveable goods. The Consumer Rights Protection Act (2009) aims to
protect consumers from fraudulent business activities, inferior quality goods, and unfair means
of competition in the marketplace and to ensure that businesses operate their companies in such
an ethical and legal manner towards consumers. The Directorate of National Consumer Rights
Protection (DNCRP) has been established to execute this act, which encompasses addressing
consumer grievances, monitoring market practices, and enforcing penalties for violations. This
research topic will examine how these well-established laws, designed to prevent such issues,
still permit these situations to occur.

4
Research Framework
Research Objective
To investigate the causes and consequences of monopolistic pricing practices in Bangladesh,
with a focus on the Food and Beverage (F&B) industry and evaluate the effectiveness of
existing legal frameworks and regulatory mechanisms in ensuring fair competition. The study
aims to propose comparative evidence-based recommendations for policy and regulatory
changes to mitigate monopolistic behaviours and protect consumer rights.

Research Questions
1. What are the product categories that have seen the largest exponential price increase and
had the most significant effect on consumers, and by how much did they increase?

• H: (1) Poultry and Meat by 10%, and (2) Dairy Products by 20%.

2. What are the current measures to monitor and control unfair/unethical pricing practices in
Bangladesh? Are they effective?

• H: (1) Lack of government enforceability, (2) Ineffective Regulations, and (3) Consumer
unawareness.

3. What are the factors of unregulated price changes and their degree of monopolistic
influence?

• H: (1) Presence of Brokers and Dealers; (2) Collusion/Syndicate between Major Players;
(3) Artificial supply shortages.

4. How are countries with similar socioeconomic factors handling the unregulated price
increases? For countries that have effectively managed and maintained the free market, how
have they ensured industries have fair competition?

• H: For similar countries, we proposed that they are facing similar issues and still developing
the appropriate systems. For effective management, we proposed that the successful
countries have at least the following: (1) Presence of strong regulatory bodies, (2) Active
market watch, (3) Transparent and effective reporting (complaint) system

5
5. What new strategies can we implement, or how can we improve existing measures to reduce
the current unfair competition practices?

Research Methodology
The research methodology for this mixed-method study with a focus on qualitative analysis
will consist of the following steps:

1. Questionnaire Development:

• Create a structured questionnaire for interviews with regular consumers

• Include questions about:

o Regular basket of goods

o Consumer understanding of current price levels and increasing prices

o Consumer understanding of their rights and laws regarding competition or sale of

goods

• Add two open-ended questions for individual opinions on major issues and possible
solutions

2. Sample Selection:

• Choose a representative sample of regular customers from shortlisted product categories

in Bangladesh

3. Data Collection:

• Conduct interviews using the prepared questionnaire

4. Data Analysis:

• Transcribe interview data

• Apply qualitative coding techniques to identify themes and patterns

• Quantify responses where appropriate for mixed-method analysis

5. Comparative Analysis:

6
 • Collect secondary data on cases of monopolistic pricing in Bangladesh and the progress
of such cases.

• Collect secondary data on inflation, economic conditions, and consumer experiences in

neighbouring countries (India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Malaysia, and
Indonesia)

• Collect secondary data on similar cases of antitrust laws and solutions implemented in
places such as the US and EU

• Analyse inflationary pressures and remedies in these countries

6. Consolidate field and research findings

• Integrate results from primary research and comparative analysis

• Identify common themes and differences across countries

• Assess the unique challenges faced by Bangladesh

• Propose a suitable solution customised to the Bangladeshi economic scene

7
Literature Review
Relevant Laws

The Competition Act, 2012

The Competition Act of 2012 in Bangladesh is a legal framework intended to promote fair
competition, prevent anti-competitive practices, and protect consumer interests within the
country’s markets. Enacted by the Parliament of Bangladesh, the Act aims to foster a
competitive environment that drives economic growth, enhances efficiency, and improves
consumer welfare.

The Act seeks to address and correct issues such as cartels, monopolies, and collusions that
restrict competition and unfairly raise prices. Section 15 of the Competition Act prohibits any
form of anti-competition agreements that may fix prices, limit or control supply or distribute
markets. Companies that have dominant market power are prohibited from abusing their
position to gain unjust advantages to impose discriminatory pricing or enforce exclusionary
contracts as per Section 16 of the Act. These sections form the basis for investigating and
addressing antitrust practices.

To ensure compliance, the Act outlines penalties, including fines and imprisonment, for
businesses and individuals who violate its provisions. By monitoring and curtailing anti-
competitive behaviour, the Act helps guarantee that consumers have access to fair prices and a
diverse range of products. Moreover, it promotes competition to encourage innovation,
efficient business practices, and the entry of new market participants.

The Competition Act grants the Bangladesh Competition Commission (BCC) the authority to
investigate and penalise violations (“The Competition Act, 2012”, pp. 8–10), thereby ensuring
a level playing field for businesses. The BCC is responsible for enforcing the Act and has the
power to monitor market activities and take action against violators.

Before the establishment of the BCC under the Bangladesh Competition Act, 2012, the food
and beverage (F&B) sector faced several challenges, including monopolistic practices, price
manipulation, artificial supply shortages, and lack of accountability. Dominated by a few large
corporations, the market exhibited anti-competitive behaviour such as price-fixing, predatory
pricing and restrictive trade agreements that disadvantaged smaller businesses and consumers
alike. These practices, coupled with inadequate regulatory oversight, led to inflated prices,

8
reduced product quality, and limited consumer choices. Smaller competitors struggled to enter
or sustain themselves in the market, while consumers bore the brunt of unchecked exploitation.

With the advent of the BCC, significant progress has been made in fostering fair competition
and curbing exploitative practices in the F&B market. The BCC actively monitors market
activities, investigates anti-competitive practices, and imposes penalties on offenders. Notable
initiatives include addressing price collusion, preventing artificial supply shortages, and
discouraging monopolistic behaviour among dominant players. Additionally, the BCC’s
advocacy programs have raised awareness among businesses and consumers about competition
laws and fair-trade practices. These measures have resulted in a more transparent market
environment, enabling the entry of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and diversifying
consumer options. Consumers now benefit from more competitive pricing and improved
quality standards as businesses strive to retain market share in a regulated environment.

However, challenges remain. The BCC's impact is still more evident in urban areas, leaving
rural markets less regulated and vulnerable to exploitation. Resource constraints and resistance
from entrenched market players also limit the BCC’s ability to enforce regulations
comprehensively. Despite these hurdles, the BCC’s interventions have created a positive shift
in the F&B market, promoting fairness, protecting consumer interests, and encouraging healthy
competition. Continued efforts to strengthen the BCC’s capabilities and broaden its reach are
essential for sustaining these gains and addressing remaining gaps in the market.

The Sale of Goods Act, 1930

The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, is one of the major laws in Bangladesh governing the sale and
purchase of goods. The law, though enacted almost a century ago, still remains of great
importance in forming commercial transactions that involve the transfer of movable properties.
Its principles have contributed much to the formulation of consumer protection laws and the
law of contracts in general. (“The Sale of Goods Act” 1930)

Some of the most important provisions of the Act include those relating to implied terms as to
the quality and fitness of goods for purpose, merchantability, and quiet possession. Sellers are
under an obligation to supply goods that are of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose where the
buyer is relying on the seller's skill and judgement, and correspond with any description or
sample held out. These provisions of the Act have been of especial importance in relation to
consumer protection. They impose duties upon sellers that extend beyond those that could be
9
expressly stipulated, affording protection to buyers who are supplied with defective products.
It has allowed the protection of consumers against abusive practices in business dealings.

The Consumer Rights Protection Act, 2009

The Consumer Rights Protection Act, 2009 (CRPA) in Bangladesh is a comprehensive legal
framework designed to safeguard consumer rights, ensure fair trade, and protect consumers
from deceptive, unethical, or unsafe business practices. Enacted by the Bangladeshi
government, the Act delineates punishments, encompassing fines and incarceration, for entities
and individuals that contravene its stipulations. The Act ensures consumer access to equitable
prices and a varied selection of products by overseeing and limiting anti-competitive practices.
Moreover, it promotes competition to encourage innovation, efficient business practices, and
the entry of new market participants. (Azad, 2013)

The main provisions of the Act include the definition of consumer, the rights of consumers,
and the duties of businesses and agencies, as well as channels for dispute resolution. The Act
holds manufacturers liable for defects in goods and services concerning the concept of product
liability. Additionally, it aids consumer education for purposes of creating awareness about
rights and entitlements. By empowering the Directorate of National Consumer Rights
Protection (DNCRP), the CRPA addresses consumer grievances, actively monitors market
activities, and enforces penalties for violations as needed.

The Consumer Rights Protection Act 2009 has brought about a profound change in the
consumer environment of Bangladesh. It established a comprehensive legal framework to
safeguard consumer rights, replacing the previous fragmented and incomplete system. The
establishment of consumer courts facilitated a more efficient complaint handling process.

Even though the Consumer Rights Protection Act was enacted in 2009, there have been many
problems in its implementation. A robust framework and active involvement by citizens and
cooperation among stakeholders are necessary for the successful protection of consumers. The
effectiveness of enforcement depends on cooperation among government agencies, civil
society organisations, and consumers themselves—hence, the cooperation of top-down and
bottom-up approaches is crucial. To fulfil the full potential of consumer protection in
Bangladesh, it is necessary to rectify the flaws in the law and overcome public indifference.
CAB and other organisations show how continuous advocacy of consumer’s rights is important
in the year of changing marketing.
10
According to surveys of 30 consumers, many of them did not know their rights under the act.
Others expressed dissatisfaction with the complaint settlement mechanism. Additionally, only
25% of consumers felt confident in reporting violations, indicating a significant gap in both
knowledge and trust in enforcement mechanisms. (Horizon Journals, 2020)

Cases of Monopolistic Practices in the Beverage Industry

In Bangladesh: Price Hikes in the Bottled Water Industry
The bottled water market in Bangladesh has seen significant price hikes in recent years,
particularly in 2023. Three major distributors—Kinley of Coca-Cola, MUM of Partex
Beverage LTD, and Aquafina of PepsiCo—raised the price of bottled water from 10 taka to 20
taka without corresponding increases in production costs. This move was part of a broader
marketing strategy to increase profits at every level of distribution, including distributors,
wholesalers, and retailers. (Atik, 2023)

When these price hikes were identified, the Bangladesh Competition Commission (BCC)
summoned the companies to explain the sudden increase. Nearly all companies cited rising raw
material costs, import taxes, and devaluation of the taka as reasons. However, an investigation
revealed that the price of resin, an essential component in bottled water production, had actually
decreased from 148 taka in December 2022 to 136 taka in October 2023. This contradicted the
companies' claims and suggested an overall decrease in production costs. (Atik, 2023)

The BCC filed a lawsuit against seven major bottled water companies for inflating prices and
profits by up to 420%, despite minimal increases in production costs. The companies involved
are Coca-Cola Bangladesh Beverage, Transcom Beverage, Meghna Beverage, Partex Beverage
(City Group), Rupshi Foods, Akij Food & Beverage, and Pran Beverage Limited. They are
accused of conspiring to raise the price of 500-ml bottles from 15 taka to 20 taka, significantly
boosting profit margins for distributors and retailers. The investigation revealed that these
practices violate the Competition Act of 2012, Sec 15 (1), Sec 15 (2)(a), and Sec 15 (2)(b).
(Karim & Wardad, 2023)

The hearing for this case took place on September 15, 2024, nearly a year after the initial
complaint was filed. The slow progress of legal proceedings has reduced consumers'
expectations of satisfactory and swift results of complaints raised to the BCC. Despite the
BCC's efforts to address the issue, the companies initially failed to attend meetings called to

11
discuss the price hikes. This highlights a lack of respect for consumer rights institutions and
the challenges faced in enforcing consumer protection laws in Bangladesh. (Karim & Wardad,
2023)

The monopolisation of the bottled water market has had significant impacts on consumers and
the wider economy. It has led to increased costs for consumers, potentially affecting those who
rely on bottled water as a source of clean drinking water. The practice has distorted competition
in the market, favouring larger companies at the expense of smaller competitors. The case
highlights the need for stronger consumer protection laws and more effective enforcement
mechanisms to favour such practices in the future. It also underscores the importance of
transparency in business operations and the need for companies to justify price increases based
on verifiable evidence rather than unsubstantiated claims. (The Business Standard, 2024a)

In India: Monopolistic Pricing in the Soft Drinks Industry

The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo (2013) case in India examined allegations of anti-
competitive practices involving two of the world's leading beverage companies. This case was
handled by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) under the Competition Act, 2002,
focusing on accusations of predatory pricing and exclusive supply agreements that allegedly
hindered competition.

The case originated from claims that Coca-Cola and PepsiCo were engaging in practices
designed to dominate the Indian beverage market unfairly. Specifically, both companies were
accused of using exclusive agreements with retailers and distributors to block access for smaller
competitors. Such arrangements allegedly restricted the market and allowed these companies
to impose pricing strategies detrimental to fair competition. (Callo, 2023)

The CCI initiated an inquiry following complaints, directing its Director General (DG) to
investigate the matter. The investigation focused on the companies' supply agreements and
pricing practices, aiming to determine whether these constituted a violation of Sections 3 and
4 of the Competition Act, which address anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant
position. (Cbcl 2019, Callo 2023)

The accusations against Coca-Cola and PepsiCo in the case focused on two key allegations.
Firstly, the companies were accused of leveraging exclusive agreements with distributors and
retailers, which purportedly prevented them from carrying competing brands. These long-term

12
contracts were seen as creating barriers to entry for smaller players, limiting market access,
and reducing consumer choice. Secondly, both companies were alleged to engage in predatory
pricing, wherein they offered their beverages at unsustainably low prices to undercut
competitors. This strategy, it was argued, aimed to dominate the market by driving smaller
competitors out of business and discouraging new entrants. However, the investigation later
determined that these practices did not conclusively result in anti-competitive effects as per the
evidence available.

The investigation revealed that while the companies did have exclusive agreements, these
contracts were flexible and allowed termination with reasonable notice, mitigating concerns
about market foreclosure. Regarding pricing, the CCI found that aggressive pricing strategies
were part of legitimate competitive behaviour rather than predatory tactics. Ultimately, the CCI
dismissed the allegations, citing insufficient evidence to prove an appreciable adverse effect on
competition.

The significance of the case lies in how it defined the following:

1. Market Dynamics: The case underscored the fine line between aggressive competition and
anti-competitive behaviour. It highlighted the need to balance fostering competition with
encouraging healthy market practices.

2. Regulatory Clarity: The decision clarified the scope of exclusive agreements and pricing
practices under competition law, offering guidance for future cases.

3. Consumer Welfare Focus: While the case did not result in penalties, it reaffirmed the CCI's
role in scrutinising large players to ensure consumer welfare and fair market access.

In summary, the CCI's decision emphasised the importance of evidence-based findings to

differentiate between competitive strategies and anti-competitive practices. This case also
encouraged smaller market participants to report perceived unfair practices, fostering a culture
of accountability in India's evolving market economy.

Cases of Monopolistic Practices in the Poultry/Food Industry

In Bangladesh: Bangladesh Competition Commission and Kazi Farms
The poultry sector in Bangladesh has been a critical component in food security and income
generation. However, post-COVID-19 pandemic economic disruptions laid bare the

13
vulnerabilities in this sector, with allegations of manipulation by major players. The BCC
received complaints from the public about the abnormally high prices of essential commodities
like eggs and broiler chicken. In response, the BCC launched investigations into the poultry
industry and found some major price increases blamed on companies such as Kazi Farms, one
of the largest poultry producers in the country. For example, egg prices rose to Tk 180 per
dozen and broiler chicken reached Tk 300 per kilogram. This meant millions of consumers
were suffering.

Public agitation over inflated prices of commodities led the BCC to take immediate action.
Following the investigations, the Commission found proof of price manipulation and anti-
competitive practices in the poultry sector. Kazi Farms became a focus of attention in the
limelight because it was dominating the market with its operations ranging from hatcheries,
feed productions to poultry farming. The investigation revealed that there is artificial price
inflation and coordination among major players to restrict competition. While this inquiry
extended to other big players as well, Kazi Farms was singled out for causing a severe
disruption in the poultry market. (The Daily Star, 2022)

Cases were filed with the BCC against 36 companies including Kazi Farms, Bashundhara
Group, PRAN-RFL Group, all major players in numerous sectors like food and construction,
under Section 15 of the Competition Commission Act for manipulating the market and anti-
competitive behaviour. Kazi Farms was charged with raising prices when the economic
recovery was picking up pace after COVID-19 and people became more vulnerable. It was
fined Tk 5 crore for its role in price manipulation that raised the cost of many essential poultry
products. The fines were meant to punish the illegal conduct and send a signal that competition
laws will be more strictly enforced. (TBS Report, 2023)

The BCC conducted an extensive investigation and gathered evidence of concerted price
increases and examined Kazi Farms' supply chain mechanism. The Commission imposed fines
on Kazi Farms and other companies involved, framing the penalty as both punitive and
deterrent. The regulatory body underscored fair trading and issued a warning for other market
players to shape up and comply with the laws of competition. However, despite these actions,
the prices of poultry products have remained high in the market, and one is left questioning the
capacity for enforcement by the BCC and the sustainability of such long-term impacts.

The case of Kazi Farms has wide implications for Bangladesh's business atmosphere. This case
underlines the BCC's increasing aggression in handling anti-competitive practices and

14
consumer interests. The fines and legal proceedings have shown that the government is
committed to ensuring a fair marketplace, which is important for economic stability and
gaining public confidence. However, the continuing high prices of poultry products reflect
persistent challenges regarding regulatory enforcement and market dynamics. This case thus
sends a warning to other dominant players in the market, underlining that for the deterrence of
price manipulation, enhanced monitoring and heavier fines will be required.

The BCC seeks to re-establish consumer confidence in such businesses and promote fair
competition by taking actions against firms like Kazi Farms; however, it will take sustained
efforts to address the structural issues of the poultry market.

In USA: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation (USA)

The broiler chicken industry in the United States, including companies like Pilgrim's Pride,
Koch Foods, and Claxton Poultry, was involved in a big price-fixing conspiracy. This
conspiracy aimed to manipulate the prices of broiler chickens, which are chickens grown for
meat production.

The investigation into price-fixing in the broiler chicken industry began around 2019. The
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) led the efforts to
uncover the conspiracy. (U.S. Department of Justice, 2022)

Companies like Pilgrim's Pride, Koch Foods, and Claxton Poultry were part of an extensive
price-fixing conspiracy in the United States' broiler chicken industry, which artificially
controlled the prices of chickens raised solely for meat production. (U.S. Department of Justice,
2022; Byington, 2021)

Court hearings also accompanied multiple indictments. The government's antitrust division
played an active role in these proceedings. The charges, besides conspiracy to suppress and
eliminate competition by rigging bids, also included price fixing. (U.S. Department of Justice,
2022)

The legal proceedings involved multiple indictments and court hearings. The DOJ's Antitrust
Division ensured the accountability of the involved companies and individuals. The charges
included conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by rigging bids and fixing prices.

15
Pilgrim’s Pride pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a $107 million fine (nearly Tk 1300 crore).
This plea was part of a broader effort to cooperate with the ongoing investigation and mitigate
further penalties.

Some charges against individual executives were eventually dismissed. For example, charges
against Justin Gay and Wesley “Scott” Tucker were dismissed in August 2022, and charges
against Jason McGuire and Timothy Stiller were dismissed in October 2022.

The DOJ continued its investigation to ensure that all parties involved in the conspiracy were
brought to justice. This included ongoing scrutiny of other companies and individuals in the
industry.

The case against Pilgrim’s Pride, Koch Foods, and Claxton Poultry highlighted the importance
of maintaining fair competition in the food industry. The legal actions taken by the DOJ and
FBI aimed to protect consumers from unfair price hikes and restore competitive practices in
the market.

In UE: European Union vs. Food Companies (Bonduelle, Coroos and Groupe
CECAB)
The European Union has been actively involved in ensuring fair competition within the food
industry, addressing issues such as price-fixing and anti-competitive practices. One notable
case was that of the European Commission against a number of food firms for colluding to fix
prices and allocate markets. (The European Commission, 2019)

Background:
The European Commission charged Bonduelle, Coroos, and Groupe CECAB with running a
long-lasting cartel in the market for the sale of canned vegetables. The companies concerned
fixed prices and allocated markets among themselves for more than 13 years, from January
2000 to October 2013.

Progression of the Case:

Investigation: The European Commission launched an investigation after receiving information
about the cartel. This included raids and inspections at the companies' premises to gather
evidence.

16
Findings: The investigation revealed that the companies had engaged in price-fixing, market
allocation, and the exchange of sensitive commercial information. They coordinated prices,
market shares, and customer allocations to maintain or increase their market positions.

Settlement: The companies admitted their involvement in the cartel and agreed to settle the
case. Bonduelle was not fined because it revealed the existence of the cartel to the Commission,
benefiting from the leniency program.

Handling the Case:

The investigation into anti-competitive practices involved a series of steps: the collection of
evidence by authorities via raids and inspections that presented documents and
communications, thus proving the existence of the cartel; then came legal proceedings under
Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which punishes cartels
and other anti-competitive behaviours. The enforcement came to an end with the imposition of
fines, considering the gravity and duration of the infringement; Coroos and Groupe CECAB
were fined a total of €31.6 million (nearly Tk 400 crore) for their involvement in the cartel.

Ensuring Fair Competition:

Some of the major initiatives of the European Commission include the following in ensuring
fair competition: It continuously monitors the markets for anti-competitive behaviour and
detects violations. To facilitate the detection, it encourages whistleblowing, therefore providing
mechanisms for individuals to report cartels and other unfair practices confidentially. The
Commission imposes deterrent fines, which are significant penalties designed to discourage
companies from engaging in similar conduct in the future. Furthermore, it actively promotes
compliance by issuing guidelines and conducting educational initiatives aimed at helping
businesses understand and adhere to competition laws. These efforts together reinforce the
competitive market environment in the EU.

These measures help maintain a level playing field in the market, ensuring that consumers
benefit from fair prices and a variety of choices. (The European Commission, 2019)

Research Paper: Comparison of "EU and US Competition Policies" by

the European Parliament
The study "EU and US Competition Policies" by the European Parliament provides a detailed
review of the competition laws of the different regions. It compiles data from legal texts,

17
historical developments, and updates in the field of competition law. The paper also refers to
important court decisions and legislation that shaped the competition laws of the US and the
EU. (Erbach & European Parliamentary Research Service, 2014)

The literature study underlines how important it is to understand the difference between US
and EU approaches to competition policy. Equally, it indicates that for fair competition and
protection of consumer interests, a balanced and efficient enforcement system is needed. In
addition, the study encompasses opportunities and challenges introduced by the global trade
environment and the digital economy.

US Competition Policy: Prior to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which forbids contracts
and commercial partnerships that impede interstate trade and commerce, the US has a lengthy
history of competition policy. Price discrimination was outlawed, and merger control was
instituted by the Clayton Act of 1914. In the same year, the Federal Trade Commission was
established to enforce laws on competition.

EU Competition Policy: European Community competition policy was given a legal

framework by the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which gave a boost to competition policy in Europe
in the post-World War II era. The treaty covers state aid, misuse of a dominant position, and
anticompetitive agreements. These are controlled by the EC.

The US and the EU have individual objectives of promoting innovation, protecting consumers,
and ensuring competition. However, the US system is based on criminal law with financial and
prison penalties for individuals, while the EU has an administrative system for antitrust
enforcement that fines businesses.

Mechanisms of Enforcement:
EU: The European Competition Network (ECN) may make it easier for national competition
authorities to coordinate and cooperate. Under Regulation 1/2003, which came into force in
2004, national competition agencies are responsible for the application of EU competition law.

US: The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice are responsible for enforcing
competition laws in the US. The FTC focuses on civil enforcement, while criminal enforcement
is the responsibility of the DOJ.

Modernisation of the rules related to state aid and updating the legislation related to recovering
damages are two of the present trends of the EU's competition policy that are in scope in this

18
paper. The efficacy and needed adjustments in antitrust enforcement to cope with the
developments in the digital economy, on the other hand, are extensively discussed in the US.

Despite common objectives, protecting consumers and promoting fair competition, US and EU
attitudes on enforcement and sanctions differ quite radically. These are differences that the
policymakers and companies operating in both markets have to understand.

19
Discussion & Data Analysis
This research has been focused on what the necessary Food and Drink Products market lacks
in terms of a legal framework, which could have caused the perceived and claimed unfair rise
in prices.

We therefore first analysed the perceived rise in prices to verify the theory and the general
claims, followed by measuring the effect it is having on individuals. Next, we analysed the
general availability and effectivity/implementation of legal frameworks and focused on the
possible lack of appropriate legal systems, which could be contributing to the price increase
(holding economic and business factors constant).

The survey was done using a questionnaire and interviews. Both physical and online methods
of data collection were used according to the suitability based on the target groups’
characteristics.

Our research population was the entirety of Bangladesh, and our research sample consisted of
a total of 40 participants with a mix from the major cities in Bangladesh, including Dhaka
(physical survey), Chittagong (online survey), and Sylhet (online survey). The largest
demographic group was between the ages of 25 and 34 years.

Figure 1: Age Distribution of Respondents

With the majority of the respondents working full-time, the annual household incomes have
ranged from under 5 lakhs to up to 30 lakhs and above. However, the most common average
household income ranges between 3 categories: 37% earning less than 5 lakhs, 25% earning
between 5 and 7.5 lakhs, and the third common range was between 7.5 and 10 lakhs.

20
 Figure 2: Employment Status and Annual Household Income Distribution

During our survey, we asked our respondents what their regular basket of goods consisted of,
and the general response included major product categories of: Fresh Produce (Fruits,
Vegetables, etc.), Poultry and Meat, Grains and Bread Products, Dairy Products (Milk, Cheese,
etc.), Household Drinks (Water, Soft Drinks, etc.). From this data, we can infer that the average
citizen’s basket consists of these main categories, each with their respective preferred brands.
The most common category in the basket was Fresh Produce including Fruits, Vegetables,
Eggs, etc., at 82.5%, followed by Poultry and Meat (67.5%) in second, and Grains and Bread
(60%) in third.

Figure 3: Most Frequently Purchases Products in Each Basket of Goods

Given that we sorted out the main product categories, we focused on how frequently the
purchases were made, and the most common response was “Weekly” at 65%. The majority of
the respondents preferred shopping for food products weekly rather than daily or monthly.

21
 Figure 4: Purchase Frequency

From the response to the survey, we can conclude that the general people of the country
(population sample) are in line with our predictions about the rise in prices. The dataset is
visualised below in Figure 5.

Figure 5: General Opinion about Price Increase

When asked about the product category with the largest price rise, the majority of the
respondents expressed that it was the Fresh Produce category, such as fruits, vegetables, etc.
According to the survey, the second most common choice was the Poultry and Meat category,
where 32.5% of the respondents said that this category had seen the largest price increase. The
ratio is illustrated in the figure below (Figure 6).

22
 Figure 6: Category-based Price Increase

For the purpose of our research, we focused on the top three categories (as per the survey) to
analyse the range of perceived price increases and the possible reasons behind the increase in
price, and in later sections of the paper, we recommend measures to mitigate the issue.
Additionally, for the remaining categories, we have created a combined analysis and discussion
as well.

The categories we focus on in the first section are:

• Poultry and Other Meat Items

• Fresh Produce

• Grain & Bread Products

23
Poultry and Meat
The Poultry and Meat category generally includes various types of Poultry items such as
chicken, duck, turkey, eggs, etc., and the meat category includes red meat generally sourced
from beef, mutton, and lamb. The general retail points for Poultry and Meat products include
wet markets, supermarkets, super shops, wholesale markets, and major brands such as Bengal
Meat, Kazi Farms, Golden Harvest, Paragon, Pran and others; they mostly supply their poultry
(meat and egg both) and meat products through distributors in major supermarkets or retail
departmental stores. The source of raw materials includes their own farms, local producers, and
farmers in general.

In line with the recent cases against a few major Poultry and Meat producers in Bangladesh,
we decided to specifically focus on the price changes in the Poultry and Meat industry. During
our survey, among the respondents who mentioned that they noticed the largest price change
in the Poultry and Meat industry (32.5%), we initially asked them which brand they preferred,
and if not brands, if they preferred the fresh market products. Our prediction was that the
general population of the country preferred Poultry and Meat items from retail independent
sources and preferred the big brands for processed and special meat products (cleaned and
dressed chicken, special cuts, patties, etc.). The general response from the survey actually
supported our assumption, as can be seen in Figure 7, where almost 70% of the respondents
prefer non-branded retail sources for their Poultry and Meat products. Among the major brands,
Kazi Farms and Golden Harvest come next at 15.4% and 12%, respectively.

Figure 7: Most Frequently Bought Brands or Products

From our survey, the general response by the respondents is that the perceived price increase
was about five to ten percent (5-10%) as compared to previous years, according to the

24
consensus of almost 70% of the research population. While the second highest opinion (23.1%)
is that prices have gone up by less than 5%. However, there were also 7.7% of the respondents
commenting that the price increase was in reality higher than 20% compared to previous years.
The general response is visualised in Figure 8. Even though, as per the general consensus of
the majority of the respondents, the price increase was between 5 and 10 percent when
analysing the effect, we must take into consideration the actual dependency on meat in a
country that is majority omnivorous (unlike India). Additionally, in a country like Bangladesh,
where the general income level is already at a lower level and affording Poultry and Meat
products is difficult to begin with, even an increase of 5-10% consistently year on year can still
pose a huge burden on the population. The general response about price change in the Poultry
and Meat industry is that what used to be a moderate level of expense on meat, is becoming a
burden slowly. Most people are feeling that the price increase is taking a larger toll on their
monthly budget and even general affordability as they depend on meat products nonetheless.

Figure 8: Perceived Extent of Price Increase

Furthermore, to expand on the previous discussion, Figure 9 highlights the opinion about the
legitimacy of such price increases in the Poultry and Meat industry. More than two-thirds
(76.9%) of the respondents believe that the price hikes are unreasonable and not driven by
actual reason, while only 23% believe that it is somewhat fair. However, even though 23% of
the respondents believe that changes are not entirely unfair, they commented that it is still
difficult to cope with the price increase due to the category being a rather basic food
requirement and not a luxury.

25
 Figure 9: Level of Accepting and Rationalizing the Price Change

Finally, when analysing the effect of price change on buying patterns, we came to know that
over 50% (53.8% to be precise) of the respondents now purchase less of certain items due to
the increase in price curtailing their purchasing abilities. 30.8% have switched to cheaper
alternatives, such as different meats or sections, and 10.5% of the population have been unable
to switch, but they remarked that it is difficult for them to manage the expenses now.

Figure 10: Effect of Price Increase of Fresh Produce Products on Consumers

Analysing the overall market situation in the Poultry and Meat industry from a legal standpoint,
we inspected a few possible reasons leading to these situations. From our analysis, it can be
predicted that a nationwide understanding between major agro-businesses, and meat & poultry
suppliers over the span of many years has led to a uniform and consistent price increase year
on year. This, combined with factors like middlemen, wholesalers, and brokers, hikes up the
prices even more. These predictions were further enforced by the recent and ongoing cases
26
against a few major players in the Poultry and Meat product category. We further expanded on
the legal viewpoint in our Results section later on.

Fresh Produce
Fresh produce usually includes unprocessed products that are available for consumption, such
as fruits and vegetables. These products are generally purchased daily or weekly at best, and
the main retail sources include wet markets, super shops, and wholesale markets. The primary
sources of supply in major cities include wholesale markets, distributors who procure goods
directly from farmers, etc.

From our survey, we estimated that there has been a price increase of 5 to 10 percent as
compared to previous years, according to the consensus of 42% of the research population.
While the second highest opinion (31% of the respondents) is that prices have gone up by more
than 20%. There is a large difference between the perceived price changes and the underlying
reason behind it that came up in our research is the range of effects starting from the
development of the locality (area), the change in available brands, and the base year of
reference the respondents choose subconsciously (mid-aged population especially).
Nonetheless, the survey did indicate that there have been increasing price changes consistently
over the past years, as illustrated in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Perceived Extent of Price Increase

Furthermore, when asked if they believe that the price increase has been at a fair and moderate
level, over 50% of the respondents (68.4% to be specific) remarked that the changes seem
unreasonable given the current economic conditions, while around 31.6% believed that even

27
though the changes are not entirely unfair, it is still difficult to cope with the price increase in
the fresh produce category.

Figure 12: Level of Accepting and Rationalizing the Price Change

When asked about how this price increase has affected the purchasing power of the consumers,
more than half of the respondents said that they had to cut down their purchases. That is, 63.2%
of the respondents remarked that they now buy less of certain items as compared to before.
While 26.3% of the respondents mentioned that they had to switch to cheaper alternatives. This
is illustrated in Figure 13.

Figure 13: Effect of Price Increase of Fresh Produce Products on Consumers

As researchers, when we look at the data, we only see a set of responses; however, when we
analyse the data and the actual effect of it on the people of the country, very disheartening
information comes to light. More than half of the population had to curtail their purchase
quantities of Fresh Produce due to the price increases.

28
Grain and Bread Products
The Grain and Bread Products category consists of all grain and bread/flour products that are
largely consumed in Bangladesh. In short, the most common grain products in Bangladesh are
rice, wheat, maize, pulses, and millet.

The general retail points include dry markets, supermarkets, super shops, and wholesale
markets. All the major brands, such as Bashundhara, Teer, ACI, Square, etc., mostly supply
through distributors in major supermarkets and retail department stores. However, there are
large-scale local mills and (unbranded) grain manufacturers and sellers in the country,
excluding the big brands that dominate the grain market in Bangladesh. The general source of
raw materials (grain) for both types of manufacturers comes from their own farms and local
producers (farmers) in general.

In line with the recent complaints in the general public about the continuing and significant
price increase in this industry, we decided to analyse the perceived magnitude of the increase
and the subsequent effects. For the analysis and discussion section, it is a prerequisite to
understand that rice, bread, and other grain products are what we categorise as “staple food” in
our country. They are a large part of our daily consumption and hence our basket of goods.
Therefore, even a small increase in price can affect consumers to a large extent but very often
leave them with no alternatives but to compromise on quality.

From our survey, the general response by around 66 percent of the respondents is that the prices
of grain items have increased by about five to ten percent (5-10%) as compared to previous
years. However, around 33% of the respondents commented that the increase has been below
5%. To summarise, the general response is that prices have definitely increased. Even though
not by a staggering amount every year, such as 20%, we must take into consideration the actual
dependence on grain items that the people of Bangladesh have. Even an increase of 5%
consistently year on year poses a huge expense burden.

29
 Figure 14: Perceived Extent of Price Increase

Furthermore, to expand on the previous discussion, Figure 15 highlights the opinion about the
price increase. Around 33.3% of the population believe that this continuing rate of price hikes
is rather unfair and artificial, while 66.7% rationalised the increase. However, the increase in
price had been referred to as difficult to manage by the entirety of the survey population,
supporting our beliefs as well.

Figure 15: Level of Accepting and Rationalizing the Price Change

When asked about how this price increase has affected the purchasing power of consumers,
33.3% of the research population mentioned that they had cut down and subsequently,
consumption of grain items, many of whom depended heavily on food products like rice and
lentils. While more than sixty-six percent (66%) of the respondents said that they had not
managed to make any changes in their purchase or consumption pattern. However, they

30
informed us that since there are no alternative options of the same quality, switching would
mean sacrificing the quality, and reducing consumption is not an option for them. So, they
continue to consume the same amount for a higher price, thus reducing their remaining
purchasing power (disposable income).

Figure 16: Effect of Price Increase of Fresh Produce Products on Consumers

After conducting the general survey about the category, we focused on analysing the overall
market situation in the grain industry from a legal standpoint to inspect a few possible reasons
leading to these situations. From our analysis, we suggest that nationwide collusion between
major grain mills and local producers and an active understanding between the major brands,
combined with factors like middlemen, wholesalers, and brokers who are imperative to operate
this industry due to current market structure and political influence, are the major factors hiking
up the prices of grain products. This theory is further expanded in our Results section later.

Dairy Products and Bottled Drinks

We also analysed the price increase and their effects on dairy products and household drinks
(water and bottled beverages).

The general effect is summarised in table 1:

31
 The extent of
Product General Opinion about
Perceived Price Largest Effect
Category Such Change
Increase

Dairy Products 5-10% Increase Unfair, Somewhat Fair Switch to Alternatives

(Response Rate) (100%) (50% - 50%) (100%)

Household Drink 10-20% Increase Unfair Purchase less

(Response Rate) (100%) (100%) (100%)

Table 1: Product Category with Relevant Price Change and Effects Information

To summarise the table, we can see that Dairy Products have a perceived rise in price between
5 to 10 percent, and about half the respondents believe that this rise is unfair, while the rest
believe it is somewhat fair but still difficult to adjust to. The general reaction to such an increase
in price is that all of the respondents interviewed remarked that they had to switch to cheaper
alternatives due to the price hike of their initially preferred brands.

Furthermore, the Household Drinks category has experienced a price increase of 10-20%, as
reported by the survey population. This increase, according to the group, is perceived as unfair.
The general response to this steady and major increase is that the whole sample population and,
as we can predict, the majority of the general population have opted to purchase fewer bottled
beverages overall.

When analysing the perceived increase from a legal perspective, we can also refer to the recent
and ongoing cases of dairy product manufacturers as well as bottled drink manufacturers. The
cases are discussed previously in the Literature Review section, and they support our
assumptions that a silent collusion between the major players in both industries has led to such
price increases in uniformity, leaving almost no cheap alternatives unless the consumers opt to
go for unbranded products, possibly sacrificing quality and brand trust.

32
Consumer Awareness about Rights and Laws Regarding Unfair and
Unethical Pricing
Now that we have analysed the price increases and their effects from a quantitative and
qualitative perspective, we now focus on the aspect of general consumer awareness about their
rights and prevalent laws when it comes to unfair or unethical price increases.

During our survey, we asked 40 participants about their knowledge of consumer rights and the
relevant laws. When we asked them about how familiar they are with the laws regarding unfair
pricing strategies, monopolistic pricing, consumer rights protections, and other relevant laws,
approximately 40% of the participants responded that they were not aware of or familiar with
the laws. While 42.5% responded that they were somewhat aware of the presence of the laws
and somewhat familiar with them, only 17.5% said they are very familiar with the laws that
can protect their rights as consumers. Furthermore, when we asked them if they knew where to
find the relevant information about consumer rights, fair pricing, and such, only around 27.5%
positively asserted that they knew where to find the information, while a staggering 72.5% of
the respondents answered that they had no knowledge of where to find these very important
sets of information. Figures 17 and 18 visualise the responses for each of the two questions.

Figure 17: Knowledge of Relevant Laws

33
 Figure 18: Knowledge about Source of Relevant Information and Laws

Next, we asked the survey population, given the situation that there were issues with the
product quality or pricing, had they ever raised a complaint to the respective authorities. 65%
of the participants responded that in such situations they have never raised a complaint or
reported it to the relevant authorities, while 35% answered that they did. Out of the 35% who
did report at least once to the authorities, we further asked if their concern was addressed
appropriately, to which only 7.9% responded that the concern was addressed satisfactorily,
while 26.3% said it was somewhat addressed but the whole process was very challenging.
However, a large portion of the complainants, a proportion of 65.8%, said that their concerns
had yet to be addressed satisfactorily. That is, 1 or 2 of the 14 respondents who raised the issue
with the authorities were able to get it sorted appropriately and satisfactorily.

Figure 19: Proportion of People Who Raised Concerns At Least Once

34
 Figure 20: Proportion of People Who Received a Satisfactory Solution

Furthermore, when we asked the remaining 65% why they never complained or raised their
concerns, the general responses consisted of replies such as,

• “the hassle wasn’t worth it”,

• “Because of less likely to fund any solution”,

• “No clear idea where to complain, who to complain and how to complain!”,

• “Lack of enough information and the overall perception of not getting desired results from
govt entities”,

• “the seller won’t correct their behaviour, or return/ exchange the products”

These figures are not just mere when we assess the actual meaning of this data, we see that
most people do not want to complain because of the hassle, the lack of clear knowledge or
procedure, and the pre-perceived notion that it won’t be addressed, and out of those who did
raise their concerns, only 7.9% were satisfied with the solution. This flags a major issue within
the system and needs to be addressed. Therefore, we have included a further discussion and
recommendations in the next sections.

35
Results
Following the data analysis and basic discussion about a few major categories, the perceived
price changes, their causes, and their effects, we now refer back to our research questions to
see if they have been answered satisfactorily and test our assumptions (hypotheses) for each
with the help of the survey results. This process will help us to get a clear understanding of the
current situation and help us identify the ongoing issues from a legal point of view. In the next
section, we plan to provide a number of recommendations for improvement.

Before we address the research questions, we need to highlight that even from an empirical
point of view, the economy has experienced a significant price increase in the target categories
as compared to previous price ranges; for example, when we compare pre-COVID prices to
prices now, we can see a significant increase. (Daily Star, 2023)

Starting off our comparison, we first rewind our research questions below:

1. What are the product categories that have seen the largest exponential price increase and
had the most significant effect on consumers, and by how much did they increase?

• H: (1) Poultry and Meat by 10%, and (2) Dairy Products by 20%.

2. What are the current measures to monitor and control unfair/unethical pricing practices in
Bangladesh? Are they effective?

• H: (1) Lack of government enforceability, (2) Ineffective Regulations, and (3) Consumer
unawareness.

3. What are the factors of unregulated price changes and their degree of monopolistic
influence?

• H: (1) Presence of Brokers and Dealers; (2) Collusion/Syndicate between Major Players;
(3) Artificial supply shortages.

4. How are countries with similar socioeconomic factors handling the unregulated price
increases? For countries that have effectively managed and maintained the free market, how
have they ensured industries have fair competition?

• H: For similar countries, we proposed that they are facing similar issues and still developing
the appropriate systems. For effective management, we proposed that the successful

36
 countries have at least the following: (1) Presence of strong regulatory bodies, (2) Active
market watch, (3) Transparent and effective reporting (complaint) system

5. What new strategies can we implement, or how can we improve existing measures to reduce
the current unfair competition practices?

We first address the first four research questions in our results section, where we test our
hypothesis and discuss them further. The fifth question is, however, not a research question,
but rather an open-ended question we address in the “Recommendations” section.

Question 1
What are the product categories that have seen the largest exponential price increase and had
the most significant effect on consumers, and by how much did they increase?

Our theory (hypothesis), which stemmed from our first-hand experience, was that the effect
was most the largest in Dairy Products such as Milk, Cheese, Butter, etc. by at least 20%, and
Poultry and Meat Products such as Chicken, Egg, Beef, Mutton, etc. by at least 10%.

Our test results, however, proved our hypothesis only to be partly correct. Even though Poultry
and Meat Products, and Dairy Products did face a significant price increase, and the perceived
extent by the consumers matched with our estimations, they weren’t the categories that had the
most notable effect on the general purchasing capacity and behaviour of consumers.

The test results suggested that the majority of the consumers believed that Fresh Produce, i.e.
Fruits, Vegetables, Herbs, and such, had seen the most significant price increase in Bangladesh.
If we refer back to Figure 6, we will see that almost half the sample population (47.5%)
answered that Fresh Produce had the largest price increase, followed by Poultry and Meat.

The underlying reason for this is that the volume and frequency of purchase for fresh produce
is the highest, followed by Poultry and Meat. Assessing our general consumption patterns in
Bangladesh, the majority of dairy products (except for milk) are often not part of our basic
basket of food products. Hence the perceived price increase, even though quite large, still is
not as significant an effect on the consumers as fresh produce or poultry could.

37
Question 2
What are the current measures to monitor and control unfair/unethical pricing practices in
Bangladesh? Are they effective?

For this question, our assumptions (hypothesis) were that, even though there are regulations
and laws present to prevent unfair pricing, collusions, and such, however, there is a lack of
enforceability, the regulations are ineffective, and in general, the consumers are unaware about
how to protect their rights from such issues (that both major companies create).

To address this question, using the survey research individually is not enough; the analysis
needs to be done from a national perspective, assessing the current legal framework. As per our
research about the laws of Bangladesh, we know that there are laws (regulations) present in
Bangladesh’s current framework. The main relevant laws include the following:

• Consumer Rights Protection Act, 2009: The objectives were to (i) Safeguard consumers
from fraud, substandard goods, and unfair practices in the marketplace, (ii) Ensure
businesses engage in ethical and lawful trading practices, and (iii) Establish an accessible,
effective system for consumers to seek recourse for grievances.

• Competition Act 2012: The objectives were to (i) The Act seeks to curb practices such as
monopolies, cartels, and collusion, which restrict competition and unfairly increase prices;
(ii) By reducing anti-competitive behaviour, the Act helps ensure that consumers have
access to fair prices and a variety of products, and (iii) Promotes fair competition to
encourage innovation, efficient business practices, and new market entrants.

• Sale of Goods Act, 1930: The objectives were to (i) set rules and standards for the sale and
purchase of goods, aiming to protect the interests of both buyers and sellers; (ii) establish
the rights, obligations, and liabilities of both parties in a sale, thus minimising disputes.

However, even though there are laws present, we have actually seen a lack of enforceability
and effectiveness of the mentioned laws. To support our statement factually, we are taking a
two-pronged approach where we refer to two sets of data (from news) about two different
aspects of unfair pricing practices. The first set of data is developed based on and from the
recent cases in Bangladesh; a few major ones have been discussed in detail in our Literature
Review section. Additionally, we refer to the cases again in our next subsection within the
Results section. When we assess these cases, we can actually see that it focusses on the unfair
pricing strategies used by large companies and conglomerates in Bangladesh strictly violate

38
the Competition Act 2012 and the Consumer Rights Protection Act 2009. However, upon
further research, we have seen that even after such significant unfair actions by many of the
major firms in Bangladesh, the general verdict, even if found guilty, is mere monetary penalties
at best. Additionally, a few times, the accused companies entirely disregarded the Government
and legal system during the first charge calls and only paid attention during further enquiry and
legal pressure from the court (Financial Express, 2023).

Further, when we expand on a few recent cases where there was an increase in product prices
with a fixed “Maximum Retail Price (MRP)," we can see that various companies have increased
the product MRPs uniformly throughout their respective markets (bottled water, poultry, rice,
etc.), while providing no accurate or precise explanation that can justify the increase in price.
This perspective makes it quite evident that even though the laws are in place, they are not
enforced appropriately, nor are they as effective as need be.

In the case of Price Hikes in the Bottled Water Industry, the BCC filed a suit against 7 major
bottled water companies that had seen a profit increase of up to 420% despite there not being
sufficient proof of a rise in material costs. The cartel's behaviour is due to be penalised with an
administrative fine; however, the legal proceedings themselves have been taking more than a
year and remain unresolved as of the writing of this paper. This fosters the perception among
consumers that complaints would not yield positive outcomes promptly, as corroborated by the
customer survey conducted in Section (6). (Ali, 2024; Atik, 2023; Karim & Wardad, 2023)

The second prong of our argument focuses on the middlemen involved in major product
markets for both fresh produce, poultry, dry food, grains, and others. The term middlemen here
refer generally to the brokers, dealers, wholesalers, and third parties that act as the distributors
and intermediaries who supply the products from the producers/farmers to the retailers (retail-
point shops). These parties have been known to be enjoying the higher profit margin created
by the inflated MRP, where the same products have a much larger profit margin at each level
of the supply chain (Financial Express, 2023). However, apart from the fixed MRP products,
when we focus on the Fresh Produce, Grain, and Poultry and Meat category, there have been
numerous instances where artificial supply shortages have been created to inflate the prices for
goods that in reality cost the same. Such an instance was very evidently observed recently in
the Poultry and Egg industry, where BDT 280 crore was pocketed in mere 20 days by artificially
raising the prices of eggs and chicks. (The Business Standards, 2024).

39
Next, in respect to our hypothesis of the lack of consumer awareness, we can refer to Figure
17, where the general responses showed that 40% of the respondents were unaware of relevant
laws about consumer rights protection, and a little more than 40% had somewhat knowledge
of the laws. However, under 20% of the respondents had proper and accurate knowledge of the
relevant laws. Additionally, Figure 18 in our Data Analysis section shows that over 70% of the
respondents had no knowledge of whether to access the information to begin with. Hence the
lack of awareness in consumers allows the companies and third parties to exploit them for
higher profit margins.

Question 3
What are the factors of unregulated price changes and their degree of monopolistic influence?

Our hypothesis for this question came from general knowledge about the markets. We proposed
that there are at least three major factors driving the unregulated price changes, each with a
significant degree of monopolistic influence. The three factors, according to our hypothesis,
were: (1) Presence of Brokers and Dealers, (2) Artificial supply shortages, (3) Collusion/
Syndicate between Major Players.

The majority of our research participants remarked that the presence of third parties such as
brokers and wholesalers for products with variable prices and the closed-door syndicates
between major manufacturers for products with printed MRPs are the key factors driving up
the prices in our country.

To support our hypothesis, we further referred to the ongoing market situation and current
circumstances. The real-world analysis provided a transparent and factual view of the market
situations. Both the presence of at least a few major factors leading to unregulated price changes
were observed, and parallelly, we managed to gather the official response that the accused
parties presented as justification of their actions (or denial in some cases).

Prices of daily essentials including rice, eggs, chicken, soybean oil, palm oil, sugar, and
vegetables have increased significantly and continue to rise further. This has been the
observation for a significant period of time now, and one of the leading factors, is the presence
of middlemen (Daily Star, 2024). Middlemen are at the very core of a product's supply chain.
All products reach from production to consumers through this chain, and it involves a range of
participants starting from producers and ending with consumers. At every stage of this chain,

40
there are middlemen involved who drive up the prices by leveraging their connection between
core producers, such as farmers, and consumers (The Financial Express, 2024). The general
process in the presence of middlemen such as brokers, wholesalers, and dealers mean that for
fresh produce products, local grain products, or Poultry and Meat products, they purchase from
the sources at lower prices, add their margins, and distribute to retailers at much higher prices,
which are at unfair and unethical levels (The Business Standards, 2024). Due to a collusion
between the distributors and wholesalers, retailers are unable to source at cheaper rates even if
they are willing to; hence, with their margins added to the cost, the final price for consumers is
much higher than it should be.

On the other end of the spectrum of goods, for products with a printed price (printed MRP),
such as processed food or branded poultry, grain items, and even bottled drinking water, the
manufacturers themselves have been uniformly increasing prices. They also provide better
incentives and margins; therefore, distributors promote brands with a higher margin, and
retailers tend to shelve (stock) higher-priced brands, leaving close to no cheaper alternatives
left for the consumers. This not only brings up the question of colluding and illegally
monopolising the industry but also brings up the question of price manipulation by the major
producers and brands in Bangladesh. (Atik, 2023; The Business Standards, 2023; Financial
Express, Et al., 2022).

Furthermore, in the third question of our research paper, where we discussed the current legal
system or the lack thereof, we mentioned a few notable cases that have finally been brought
under light after years of manipulation and unethical profit-making has already occurred.
Majority of the recent unfair pricing cases in the courts of Bangladesh refer to the majority of
the manipulation stemming from collusions (illegal coalitions) leading to monopolistic
strategies, syndicates in wholesale/distribution segments, and, very importantly, the creation of
artificial supply shortages. (The Daily Star, 2022; Prothom Alo, 2023; The Financial Express,
2024)

To further expand on the last reason and to support the last reason in our hypothesis, we can
refer to the news of artificial price hikes in the edible oil industry back in the 2020s. Since the
market price is the combination of supply and demand, thus the involved parties, starting from
producers, dealers, and wholesalers combined created an artificial supply crisis to drive up
prices, which finally in 2022 was brought to court by the Federation of Bangladesh Chambers
of Commerce and Industry’s investigation unit. Furthermore, the continuing and significant

41
manipulation in the poultry and egg industry using the artificial supply shortage trick to drive
up prices is an additional argument supporting our hypothesis. (The Business Standard, 2022;
TBS Report, 2024)

However, from the secondary research sources, we collected a number of explanations that the
accused brands and traders (middlemen) had provided to the court and reporters. For the major
brands, their general responses included the following: (i) Few of the major brands claimed
that their cost of production had been increasing due to the depreciation of the local currency,
the rising raw material expenses, and labour costs; (ii) Some other companies claimed that such
accusations were negative marketing stunts pulled by their competitors and detractors; (iii)
Amongst the distributors, brokers, dealers, and other middlemen, when interviewed about the
accusations both formal and informal, they remarked that with the rising cost of transportation,
wage rates, inflation, and taxes, the margin increase was necessary for their survival; (iv)
Majority of the middlemen spoke up, and claimed that the accusations of the artificial supply
shortages and price manipulations are unsubstantiated. However, no material evidence was yet
to be found in public sources to support their claims. (The Business Standard, 2024; Dhaka
Tribune, 2023; Karim & Wardad, 2023)

To sum it up, there are in actuality many factors driving up the price of major food products in
an unregulated way, including supply, the presence of syndicates, illegal toll collection, hiked-
up transportation costs, the involvement of middlemen, artificial supply shortages, the lack of
an efficient market mechanism, and credible statistics on the production of farm goods.

Question 4
How are countries with similar socioeconomic factors handling the unregulated price
increases? For countries that have effectively managed and maintained the free market, how
have they ensured industries have fair competition?

Our hypothesis for this question was that countries with similar socioeconomic factors as
Bangladesh are still in the process of developing effective systems to handle similar situations.
Our assumptions were that many of the similar countries are, in reality in the same state as
Bangladesh. On the other hand, for Countries that have managed to successfully maintain the
free market and mitigate unfair pricing issues, in those countries, there were (1) the presence

42
of strong regulatory bodies, (2) active market watch, and (3) Transparent and effective
reporting (complaint) system.

For the comparison about a nation with comparable socioeconomic context, we chose India
where there were recent cases regarding a few major bottled drink manufacturers colluding.
India underwent a remarkably similar according to our literature assessment regarding the
case against Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. The case initiated legal action on allegations of predatory
pricing violations and exclusive supply arrangements that allegedly hindered competition. The
accusation, as previously indicated, was that these two companies obstructed access for small
competitors and exploited their dominant market positions. Nonetheless, the CCI, India's
equivalent to the BCC, determined that the “exclusive contracts” alleged to have been
established by the corporations were, in fact, flexible and did not impede fair competition. The
allegations were ultimately dismissed due to a lack of adequate evidence. Regrettably, major
corporations possess formidable legal teams and unethical strategies to secure advantageous
results, imposing the consequences of their greed and cunning on consumers. (Cbcl., 2019)

In the food industry, there are numerous local and foreign cases to examine. Bangladesh has
faced severe consequences of an unchecked market monopoly during COVID, with the prices
of poultry, grains, and more rising to unprecedented heights. The case studies from the United
States and the European Union offer crucial lessons in antitrust enforcement and consumer
protection. In our literature, we focused on the charges against Kazi Farms to comparatively
study similar cases in the food industry. In all of the cases, Kazi Farms - Bangladesh, Broiler
Chicken Antitrust, USA; and Canned Vegetables, EU, severe fines were levied against the
accused parties to deter further infractions. In the Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, the DOJ
prosecuted several companies in the broiler chicken industry for price-fixing, demonstrating a
strong commitment to enforcing antitrust laws. (Volkov, M., 2021) The case resulted in
significant fines and guilty pleas, showcasing the consequences of price manipulation. In the
EU, the European Commission successfully prosecuted the Food Companies Cartel involving
canned vegetable companies, imposing substantial fines. This case exemplifies the EU's
proactive approach to ensuring fair competition within the food industry. (Mike & Mike. 2019)

43
Scenario Analysis Using Current Legal Framework and Further
Discussion
If a company or firm is charged under Sections 15 or 16 of the Competition Act 2012, Section
20(a) provides an outline of how the case proceeds. The BCC may either order the person or
persons involved in the anti-competitive behaviours to cease such acts, impose a virtual slap
on the wrist, or impose a deterrent fine that is not to be more than 10% of the turnover of the
last three years. For the case of parties accused of cartel behaviour (The Competition Act, 2012,
Sec 20.b), the fine can be up to three times their profit for each year of the continuance of the
cartel agreement, or 10% of their company turnover, whichever value is higher. The fine in
either case is administrative and does not create any criminal liability. The focus of the
Competition Act issuing an administrative financial penalty is to encourage compliance rather
than penalise financial non-compliance. As the appeal process can unduly lengthen the
disposition, the lack of penalisation for non-compliance does not factor in the hindrance of
such behaviours. (The Competition Act, 2012)

Of the three foreign case analyses, we can take inspiration from the first-world countries, who
have a stronger loyalty to the general public. India provides a broader perspective on successful
antitrust enforcement strategies in India, where the case did not reach a satisfactory conclusion
from a consumer’s perspective. In the US, the system relies on criminal law imposing financial
and incarceration penalties on individuals, whereas the EU has an administrative framework
for antitrust enforcement that levies fines on enterprises, establishing a separation of entities.

Currently, Bangladesh has an approach similar to that of the EU; however, we will propose
modifications to legislation in the following section to more effectively bridge the gaps in our
legal framework. We will also suggest measures that legislative bodies could implement to
achieve a definitive and thorough suppression of monopolistic and anti-competitive practices.

44
Recommendation
In this section, we will discuss potential remedial actions the Bangladesh Competition
Commission (BCC) and the Directorate of National Consumer Rights Protection (DNCRP)
could take to address and bridge the gaps in our legislation and regulations (of the relevant
acts).

A thorough analysis of the Acts that maintain competitiveness, fairness, and ethical practices
in the markets and protect consumer rights has revealed that penalties often are of an
administrative nature and only exist to encourage compliance. Indicted parties are fined in a
way to fosters compliance with the Competition Act and discourages monopolistic practices.
However, it’s been seen to be ineffective as a long-term solution, as companies simply pay the
price and, to mitigate the burden, relay it to their consumers through further price hikes.

From the analyses of the cases in the US and EU, the importance of strong deterrents, strict
monitoring, and proactive enforcement is unmistakable. The Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation illustrated that rigorous enforcement of antitrust legislation can successfully inhibit
price fixing and safeguard consumers. The significant fines and guilty pleas underscored the
severe consequences of price manipulation. The DOJ's efforts in the grill chicken case
underscored the necessity for ongoing oversight of business practices and the need for proactive
legal measures against cooperation. The case demonstrated the significance of a proactive
regulatory strategy to prevent and remediate antitrust offences. Similarly, the prosecution of
the Food Companies Cartel highlighted that a proactive approach is effective even at tackling
a long-standing, well-established cartel. Investigation, confidential whistleblowing, and
educational initiatives are all measures taken by the EC to improve their capacity to monitor
and enforce antitrust legislation.

As reported by an overwhelming majority of our survey population, most consumers are either
entirely or partially unaware of their consumer rights, and furthermore, they do not know where
such information could be found. Educating consumers about their rights and how to identify
unfair practices is crucial, as many of our research base were eager to learn about their as
shown in Figure 21. A well-designed consumer education program can raise awareness and
empower individuals to report violations. This could include public awareness campaigns,
educational workshops, and partnerships with consumer protection organisations to
disseminate information effectively.

45
 Figure 21: Willingness and Interest in Learning About the Relevant Laws and Regulations
Protecting Consumer Interest

We could also take the initiative to strengthen antitrust laws by having clear definitions of anti-
competitive and cartel-like behaviour to help in the identification and prosecution of such
infractions. This should be properly conveyed to all such as consumers, and distributors, to
ensure that the monitoring reach of government agencies such as the BCC and the DNCRP are
not limited to official complaints only. Introduce whistleblower incentives and protection for
various stakeholders to increase the reach of market monitoring and enforcement. Government
agencies, businesses, and consumers, both individuals and organisations, should be encouraged
to work together to share information and coordinate enforcement efforts to develop strategies
to promote fair competition. Communication lines and grievance escalation channels should
be more clearly established and promoted transparently to prompt open communication
between the general consumer base and the government entities in charge of monitoring.

Furthermore, the introduction of new legislation is becoming increasingly crucial to maintain

fair markets in a country where a large majority of the population live below the average
income level and generally bear a disproportionate burden of unmitigated price increases and
uncontrolled inflation. Taking inspiration from the US perspective of enforcing competition
laws in both civil and criminal manners, Bangladesh could introduce a new legal framework
or criminally penalise infractions to further deter such behaviour and hold the instigators
accountable as well as the company rather than only the company. This framework could be
introduced as a new piece of legislation or as an amendment to the pre-existing laws, to further
deter monopolistic market behaviour and price manipulation.

46
Another proposal could involve establishing a system or regulatory body to monitor and
oversee middle-man distributors in business-to-business (B2B) transactions, where local
syndicates may have a greater influence. As seen in a recent case, suppliers have tried to create
artificial supply shortages to hike up the prices of eggs in search of a greater profit margin.
[Daily Star, 2022] As these distributors are often individual agents, less liable to a board of
directors, they have less accountability and may act more unethically. The BCC could create a
subdivision of their investigative to monitor the actions of mid-level distributors and suppliers
to ensure that profit collection at each level of distribution is at a reasonable level so as to
maintain overall price of goods.

Conclusion
In recent years, especially over the past decade, there has been a significant increase in prices
of food products of different categories. We have seen an influx of new brands and the
expansion of the current ones as well. The market, even though very robust with options now,
is facing an upward pricing pressure that is uniform across all branded and local (non-branded)
products. Monopolistic market arrangements and unrestrained supply chain manipulation by
the brokers posing as the middlemen have exacerbated this inflation. A small number of
prominent firms and a handful of suppliers and traders are progressively asserting dominance
over the market for essential consumer goods in Bangladesh, leading to a constrained
competitive landscape. Furthermore, market manipulation, inadequate logistics, and
mishandled policies made artificial supply shortages worse, which impacted price stability.
Such a situation poses significant risks to the future prospects of the country as a whole as well
as the well-being of the citizens in Bangladesh.

It is imperative to address and resolve the monopolistic pricing practices, unfair and unethical
pricing strategies, artificial supply shortages, and consumer exploitation. We therefore
conducted this research to assess the current situation of the Food and Drink Products market
in Bangladesh, pinpoint the deficiencies in the current regulations and legal framework, and
finally suggest a series of recommendations to improve the situation in the market. We assessed
the recent and relevant cases in Bangladesh as well as other notable countries to draw a
comparison of where we stand.

47
By the perfect combination of our local expertise and learning from international experiences,
while strengthening the national framework, Bangladesh can pave the way for a more equitable
and prosperous market. Through enhanced regulatory mechanisms, transparency, and
consumer education is essential for safeguarding consumer welfare and promoting economic
stability in Bangladesh. Our suggested recommendations are summarised to conclude the
paper.

• Implement and improve consumer awareness programs.

• Strengthen antitrust laws. Additionally, clearer definitions of anti-competitive behaviour

will help in the identification and prosecution.

• Introduce new legislation or modifications to existing legislation to criminally penalise

infractions to further deter such behaviour and hold the instigators accountable rather than
only the businesses.

• Empower government agencies to monitor market practices, investigate potential antitrust

violations, and expedite legal proceedings to address consumer grievances.

• Implement/introduce whistleblower incentives and protection for various stakeholders to

increase the reach of market monitoring and enforcement. Government agencies,
businesses, and consumers (individuals and organisations) should work together to share
information and coordinate enforcement efforts to develop strategies to promote fair
competition.

• Strengthen regulatory mechanisms and, if needed, introduce specialised government

agencies to address the supply chain vulnerabilities and manipulation.

We believe that a combination of these, along with a reformed thought process at the core level,
can help reform the market situation in Bangladesh.

48
References
bdnews24.com. (2023, August 23). Consumers feel the pinch as bottled water brands hike sales
commissions to boost market growth. Consumers Feel the Pinch as Bottled Water Brands
Hike Sales Commissions to Boost Market Growth. https://bdnews24.com/business/2nvlz1piyf

Byington, L. (2021, July 29). 4 Pilgrim’s Pride execs and Koch foods charged with chicken
price fixing. Food Dive. https://www.fooddive.com/news/claxton-poultry-farms-charged-
with-chicken-price-fixing-in-long-running-cas/586595

Dhaka Tribune. (2024, October 25). Demand-supply gap causing poultry price-hike. Dhaka
Tribune. https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/363162/demand-supply-gap-causing-
poultry-price-hike

Erbach, G. & European Parliamentary Research Service. (2014). EU and US competition

policies similar objectives, different approaches. In
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2014/140779/LDM_BRI(20
14)140779_REV1_EN.pdf (No. 140779REV1). European Parliamentary Research Service.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2014/140779/LDM_BRI(20
14)140779_REV1_EN.pdf

New Age BD. (2024, December 4). Price hike makes life costlier in pandemic.
https://www.newagebd.net/article/162958/price-hike-makes-life-costlier-in-pandemic

Prothomalo. (2022, September 26). Cases filed against 36 conglomerates, tycoons inlcuding
Bashundhara, S Alam, Square, Pran, ACI. https://en.prothomalo.com/business/djyd7got9y

Raihan, M. A. (2021, December 1). EFFECT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON MARKET

PRICE OF CHICKEN AND CHICKEN PRODUCTS IN BANGLADESH.
http://archive.saulibrary.edu.bd:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/4799

Report, T. (2023, October 10). Kazi Farms, Saguna Food fined Tk8.44cr for manipulation of
poultry market. The Business Standard. https://www.tbsnews.net/bangladesh/kazi-farms-
fined-tk5-crore-manipulating-poultry-market-715254

Some egg suppliers trying to create artificial crisis: FBCCI administrator. (2024, October 27).
The Business Standard. https://www.tbsnews.net/markets/corporate-egg-suppliers-trying-
create-artificial-crisis-fbcci-administrator-977541

49
The Business Standard. (2022, August 22). Punish those involved in egg price manipulation:
FBCCI. The Business Standard. https://www.tbsnews.net/bangladesh/punish-those-involved-
egg-price-manipulation-fbcci-481886

The Business Standard. (2024a, September 15). Bottled water companies rake huge profits
despite small cost increase. The Business Standard.
https://www.tbsnews.net/economy/bottled-water-companies-rake-huge-profits-despite-
small-cost-increase-941646

The Business Standard. (2024b, October 5). TK280CR pocketed in 20 days by artificially
raising prices of eggs, chicks: Poultry Assoc. The Business Standard.
https://www.tbsnews.net/markets/tk280cr-pocketed-20-days-artificially-raising-prices-eggs-
chicks-poultry-assoc-959221

The Business Standard. (2024c, October 27). Some egg suppliers trying to create artificial
crisis: FBCCI administrator. The Business Standard.
https://www.tbsnews.net/markets/corporate-egg-suppliers-trying-create-artificial-crisis-
fbcci-administrator-977541

The Competition Act, 2012. (2012). In https://dncrp.portal.gov.bd/ (Act 23 of 2012). Ministry

of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division.
https://ccb.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/ccb.portal.gov.bd/law/a8c5a023_43f9_4675
_adc8_38b20be04803/CompetitioACTEnglish.pdf

The Consumers’ Rights Protection Act, 2009. (2009). In https://dncrp.portal.gov.bd/ (Act 26 of

2009). Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Legislative and Parliamentary
Affairs Division.
https://dncrp.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/dncrp.portal.gov.bd/page/6654dd6a_537a
_4838_9017_712db7c60cd9/consumer%20act-2009.pdf

The Daily Star. (2022, September 26). Hearing against abnormal price hikes begins. The Daily
Star. https://www.thedailystar.net/business/news/competition-commission-published-full-
lists-alleged-offenders-3128836

The Daily Star. (2023, December 9). Post-Covid price inflation drives up poverty. The Daily
Star. https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/news/post-covid-price-inflation-drives-
poverty-3489436

50
The European Commission. (2019, September 19). Antitrust: Commission fines Coroos and
Groupe CECAB €31.6 million for participating in canned vegetables cartel [Press release].
Retrieved November 13, 2024, from
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/it/ip_19_5911

The Financial Express. (n.d.-a). Egg, chicken prices defy govt-set rates.
https://today.thefinancialexpress.com.bd/last-page/egg-chicken-prices-defy-govt-set-rates-
1726596642

The Financial Express. (n.d.-b). Mineral water producers face scrutiny as authorities seek cost
breakdowns. https://today.thefinancialexpress.com.bd/print/mineral-water-producers-face-
scrutiny-as-authorities-seek-cost-breakdowns-1697050075

The Financial Express. (2023a, March 9). Rein in poultry-feed price hike. The Financial
Express. https://thefinancialexpress.com.bd/editorial/rein-in-poultry-feed-price-hike

The Financial Express. (2023b, October 12). Mineral water producers face scrutiny as
authorities seek cost breakdowns. The Financial Express.
https://today.thefinancialexpress.com.bd/print/mineral-water-producers-face-scrutiny-as-
authorities-seek-cost-breakdowns-1697050075

The Sale of Goods Act, 1930. (1930). In https://dncrp.portal.gov.bd/ (Act III of 1930). Ministry
of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division.
http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-150.html

Unilever, Bashundhara, Square, Pran among 36 sued for destabilising commodity markets.
(2022, September 26). The Business Standard.
https://www.tbsnews.net/markets/bashundhara-square-pran-among-36-sued-destabilising-
commodity-markets-503674

U.S. Department of Justice. (2022, October 27). Four executives and company charged with
price fixing in ongoing [Press release]. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-executives-and-
company-charged-price-fixing-ongoing-investigation-broiler-chicken

Volkov, M. (2021, August 6). DOJ’s Criminal Cartel Prosecution of Chicken Industry Expands
Net - Koch Foods and Four Pilgrim’s Pride Executives Charged - Corruption, Crime &
Compliance. Corruption, Crime & Compliance. https://blog.volkovlaw.com/2021/08/dojs-

51
 criminal-cartel-prosecution-of-chicken-industry-expands-net-koch-foods-and-four-pilgrims-
pride-executives-charged/

Wing, L. A. (2023, June 4). Post-pandemic inflation – The world & Bangladesh. LightCastle
Partners. https://lightcastlepartners.com/insights/2022/06/post-pandemic-inflation-the-
world-bangladesh/

52
Appendix
Survey Form
Format: Questionnaire
Platform: Google Form
Question Set:

1 What is your age demographic?

2 Employment Status

3 What is your total annual household income?

4 What types of items do you regularly purchase? (Select all that apply)

5 How frequently do you purchase these items?

6 Have you noticed any price changes for these regular items in the past year?

7 If prices have increased, which of the following categories have had the highest increase
in pricing? If not, select 'No noticeable change' to move forward

8 If prices have increased, what would you estimate the average increase to be?

9 Do you think the price changes are fair?

10 Have price changes affected your purchasing decisions?

11 Which brand do you usually purchase?

12 If prices have increased, what would you estimate the average increase to be?

13 Do you think the price changes are fair?

14 Have price changes affected your purchasing decisions?

15 Which brand do you usually purchase?

16 If prices have increased, what would you estimate the average increase to be?

17 Do you think the price changes are fair?

18 Have price changes affected your purchasing decisions?

53
19 Which brand do you usually purchase?

20 If prices have increased, what would you estimate the average increase to be?

21 Do you think the price changes are fair?

22 Have price changes affected your purchasing decisions?

23 Which brand do you usually purchase?

24 If prices have increased, what would you estimate the average increase to be?

25 Do you think the price changes are fair?

26 Have price changes affected your purchasing decisions?

27 How familiar are you with your rights as a consumer regarding pricing and product
quality?

28 Do you know where to find information about your consumer rights?

29 If you have had any issues regarding product quality or pricing, have you raised any
complaints?

30 If you answered 'Yes' to the previous question, do you feel you were able to address them
to your satisfaction?

31 If you answered 'No' to the previous question, why did you not raise a complaint?

32 Would you be interested in receiving information or updates about your laws regarding
consumer rights, fair pricing, and such?

33 Please provide any additional comments or suggestions regarding price changes and
consumer rights.

54