By Alberto Heimler (Government of the Italian Republic, National School of Administration)
Margin squeezes can be evaluated under a predation or a refusal-to-deal standard. Both Carlton and Sidak argue in favor of using the predation standard. However, should the conditions for an abusive refusal to deal be satisfied, then margin squeezes should be prohibited even when prices are not predatory. It is sufficient that they are exclusionary. According to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in linkLine, when a vertically integrated company is not subject to an obligation to supply, there cannot be a margin-squeeze case. However, the Court does not establish how to define a margin squeeze when there is an antitrust duty to supply. In those circumstances, the EC approach in the Deutsche Telekom case helps to identify a standard. In any event, remedies in margin-squeeze cases should make sure that incentives to eliminate double-marginalization are maintained.
Featured News
India’s Watchdog Bans WhatsApp Data Sharing for Five Years, Fines Meta $25.4M
Nov 18, 2024 by
CPI
Major US Potato Processors Face Price-Fixing Allegations in New Suits
Nov 18, 2024 by
CPI
French Watchdog Demands Separation of Kindred Brands by FDJ Following Acquisition
Nov 18, 2024 by
CPI
Italian Court Overturns €5 Million Fine on Eni’s Plenitude Over Price Hike Dispute
Nov 18, 2024 by
CPI
Data Center Construction Firms Face EU Raids Over Potential No-Poach Agreements
Nov 18, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Remedies Revisited
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Fixing the Fix: Updating Policy on Merger Remedies
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Methodology Matters: The 2017 FTC Remedies Study
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
U.S. v. AT&T: Five Lessons for Vertical Merger Enforcement
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
The Search for Antitrust Remedies in Tech Leads Beyond Antitrust
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI