The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit finds that the dominant company has violated section 2 of the Sherman Act by using its bundled rebate program and certain exclusive dealing arrangements to maintain its monopoly in the transparent tape (LePage’s / 3M)

This article has been nominated for the 2013 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards.

LePage’s, Cascade Health Solutions, and a Bundle of Confusion* Discounts on bundled products are commonplace. Consumers value and often expect discounts when purchasing a bundle of products. Sellers use bundled product discounts to compete effectively and maximize sales. As one court has observed, “the world’s largest corporations offer bundled discounts as their product lines expand with the convergence of industries . . . [and] a street corner vendor with a food cart—a merchant with limited capital—might offer a discount to a customer who buys a drink and potato chips to complement a hot dog.” Cascade Health Solutions v. PeaceHealth, 515 F.3d 883, 895 (9th Cir. 2008). Despite the ubiquity of the practice, however, the law in this area is more than just unsettled—it is a mess. Sellers,

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Morrison Foerster (Washington)

Quotation

Jeff Jaeckel, The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit finds that the dominant company has violated section 2 of the Sherman Act by using its bundled rebate program and certain exclusive dealing arrangements to maintain its monopoly in the transparent tape (LePage’s / 3M), 25 March 2003, e-Competitions March 2003, Art. N° 53548

Visites 127

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues