The Need for Clarification on Product Hopping: Open Questions after Namenda and Doryx
Posted by Social Science Research Network
The Need for Clarification on Product Hopping: Open Questions after Namenda and Doryx
By Lindsey M. Edwards (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati)
Abstract: Several tensions exist between the Second Circuit’s decision in Namenda and the Third Circuit’s decision in Doryx, leaving unanswered a number of questions about product hopping. This paper examines those tensions and potential consequences of failing to reconcile them. Part I defines product hopping and explains some of the ways it can be manifested. Part II provides an overview of the regulatory environment in which product hopping occurs. Part III summarizes the Namenda and Doryx opinions. Part IV examines the tensions between those opinions and discusses some of the open questions about product hopping left for the antitrust bar to decipher. Part V concludes.
Featured News
New York AG Wins Antitrust Battle Against Intermountain Management Over Ski Market Competition
Mar 10, 2025 by
CPI
Rocket Cos. to Acquire Redfin in $1.75 Billion All-Stock Deal
Mar 10, 2025 by
CPI
EU Conducts Dawn Raids on Non-Alcoholic Drink Giants Over Competition Concern
Mar 10, 2025 by
CPI
NY Attorney General Takes Legal Action Against Allstate for Cybersecurity Failures
Mar 10, 2025 by
CPI
Britain’s Antitrust Regulator Sets Clearer Path for Big Tech Oversight
Mar 10, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Self-Preferencing
Feb 26, 2025 by
CPI
Platform Self-Preferencing: Focusing the Policy Debate
Feb 26, 2025 by
Michael Katz
Weaponized Opacity: Self-Preferencing in Digital Audience Measurement
Feb 26, 2025 by
Thomas Hoppner & Philipp Westerhoff
Self-Preferencing: An Economic Literature-Based Assessment Advocating a Case-By-Case Approach and Compliance Requirements
Feb 26, 2025 by
Patrice Bougette & Frederic Marty
Self-Preferencing in Adjacent Markets
Feb 26, 2025 by
Muxin Li