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
EU Closes Antitrust Case Against Edwards Lifesciences After Policy Withdrawal
Feb 16, 2026 by
CPI
Federal Judge Rules AI Chatbot Conversations Can Be Seized as Evidence in Fraud Cases
Feb 16, 2026 by
CPI
Michigan Alleges Oil Industry Conspired to Stall EVs and Renewable Power
Feb 16, 2026 by
CPI
Jones Day Expands German Antitrust Practice with Senior Munich Hire
Feb 16, 2026 by
CPI
UK Considers Australian-Style Social Media Ban for Under-16s; Moves to Tighten AI Safety Laws
Feb 16, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Hub-&-Spoke Conspiracies
Jan 26, 2026 by
CPI
A Data Analytics Company as the Hub in a Hub-and-Spoke Cartel
Jan 26, 2026 by
Joseph Harrington
Hub and Spoke Cartels
Jan 26, 2026 by
Patrick Van Cayseele
Hub-and-Spoke Collusion or Vertical Exclusion? Identifying the Rim in Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracies
Jan 26, 2026 by
Rosa Abrantes-Metz, Pedro Gonzaga, Laura Ildefonso & Albert Metz
The Algorithmic Middleman in a Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracy: Divergent Court Decisions and the Expanding Patchwork of State and Local Regulations
Jan 26, 2026 by
Bradley C. Weber