Peace enforcement
The paradox of a bilateral monopoly is that the monopolist has a relatively strong relationship with a monopsonist. Both the seller and the buyer know each other very well and perfectly understand the economic and technological aspects of their work. Problems begin to arise when they cannot determine the conditions of purchase and sale, including price, demand and supply, by standard market methods, and begin to go beyond acceptable behavior, which creates uncertainty and threat for the entire market. Both the monopolist and the monopsonist seek to achieve conditions that will ensure both of them maximum profit, and these are mutually exclusive goals. Given the considerable market power of these companies, they are extremely prone to use it in abusive format. Therefore, antimonopoly regulation mechanisms should be launched to protect public interest.
Economic disputes even between dominant companies are considered civil-law. But the dominant position in the market distinguishes a company among other subjects of civil law and imposes certain restrictions on it. Administrative powers allow the FAS to maintain and control the private interests of the powerful companies within the legal framework.
Often a complaint to the antimonopoly authority on actions of the opponent indicates that the monopolist and the monopsonist have already exhausted the opportunity to agree. But, unfortunately, the law on the protection of competition does not give a complete and detailed picture of the procedural possibilities of the FAS in such cases. When two dominant players, the companies, each of them is both an offender and a victim, the antimonopoly body cannot do anything to solve the dispute. When a monopsist files a complaint against a monopolist (and vice versa), any decision taken by the FAS will distort the market, the balance of supply and demand and the market power of the parties. It is a mistake to think that these will be the consequences only of conviction.
The only difference between the accusatory and acquittal decisions is the final result for the entire market: an increase in the market power of either the applicant or the defendant. However, is the FAS entitled to give up and not take control over the monopolist-monopsonist connection, in fact sacrificing public interest to the private?
The antimonopoly body does not act as a court and does not resolve legal disputes (even if the essence of the matter lies in the dispute between two strong companies in the market), but instead, protects public interest. The outcome of the proceedings should be the decision of the antimonopoly body, which will lead to the restoration of the market balance and equalization of market power both of the monopolist and of the monopsonist. Moreover, it shall assess whether there has been a violation of the antimonopoly legislation.
The model of a bilateral monopoly requires a special order of initiation and consideration of cases. The method of making such decisions and procedural stages can be called "forced mediation". The parties are brought to peace and negotiations by measures of administrative coercion by the FAS (administrative fines, binding on both companies at the same time). If it is not possible to agree, the FAS decides to settle the relationship independently, having punished the monopolist and the monopsonist.