Daniel Crane, Dec 20, 2012
Brantley raises important issues of law, economics, and policy about tying arrangements. Under current legal principles, Brantley was on solid ground in distinguishing between anticompetitive ties and those that might harm consumer interests without impairing competition. As a mat- ter of economics, the court was also right to reject the claim that the cable programmers forced consumers to pay for programs the customers didn’t want. The hardest question is a policy one- whether antitrust law should ever condemn the exploitation of market power in ways that extract surplus from consumers but do not create or enlarge market power. I shall argue that Brantley got this last question right as well.
Featured News
FTC Asks Appeals Court to Reinstate Expanded Merger Disclosure Rule
Feb 19, 2026 by
CPI
Lawmakers Seek GAO Review of State and Federal AI Regulations
Feb 19, 2026 by
CPI
UK Flags Editorial Content Concerns in Getty-Shutterstock Merger
Feb 19, 2026 by
CPI
DOJ Examines Warner Bros. Sale as Theater Chains Voice Concerns
Feb 19, 2026 by
CPI
Australia Court Fines Mobil A$16 Million Over Misleading Fuel Claims
Feb 19, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – The Gig Economy
Feb 19, 2026 by
CPI
Market Power and Governance Power: New Tools for Antitrust Enforcement in the Decentralized Gig Economy
Feb 19, 2026 by
Seth C. Oranburg
10 Years of Labor Antitrust Guidance: Lessons for Workers and the Gig Economy
Feb 19, 2026 by
Richard Powers & Michael Swerdlow
Antitrust & Gig Workers: Labor Exemption As Protection
Feb 19, 2026 by
Marina Lao
Beyond Non Competes: Platform Tethered Non Circumvention Clauses for Digital Platforms
Feb 19, 2026 by
Scott Nelson, Hugh Hollman & John Baker