By Jonathan M. Barnett
Antitrust law is notorious for its hard questions. Enacted in 1890, the Sherman Act prohibits “restraints of trade” and the meaning of that cryptic phrase still remains unresolved. Yet, there has never been any serious debate as to the illegality of one type of restraint: horizontal price-fixing.
The “per se” rule against this practice reflects the virtual absence of uncertainty concerning its harmfulness. That rule enables plaintiffs to prove a violation by demonstrating the existence of a cartel, without showing harm and without having to rebut countervailing justifications.
This is a powerful driver behind the antitrust laws’ ability to deter activity that so obviously distorts the market-pricing mechanism.
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh