Plasterboard Cartel Conduct: Can a Company Seek Immunity?

You work for a large supplier of plasterboard used in construction. Plasterboard is sometimes called 'Gyp rock', 'Drywall', or 'Sheetrock'. There are only four suppliers of plasterboard in Australia and your business has 40% market share by sales value across all of Australia. Each of your competitors has a 20% share. You know that your business has refused to supply the major domestic DIY chain called Bunnings Warehouse, unless Bunnings stocks only your brand of plasterboard. You know that one of your competitors has done the same thing with another domestic DIY chain called Mitre10. You recommend to the General Counsel that you report this cartel conduct and seek immunity from prosecution from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Your General Counsel says that you have no possibility of immunity. Why might the General Counsel say this?

The General Counsel might say that there is no possibility of immunity because the company itself has engaged in anti-competitive behavior by refusing to supply a major domestic DIY chain unless they exclusively stock their brand of plasterboard. This behavior is seen as a form of cartel conduct, where competitors collude to manipulate the market and restrict competition. Seeking immunity in this case would be seen as an attempt to evade the consequences of the company's own anti-competitive actions.