The US Supreme Court reaffirms market power requirement to determine a tying arrangement as per se unlawful (Independent Ink)

Are tying arrangements illegal per se?* In the deep, dark antitrust dungeon reserved for per se offenses, only one species of conduct remains that does not involve a horizontal conspiracy: tying arrangements. Minimum resale pricing agreements tunneled their way out thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2007 Leegin decision, even though Congress and the states are in hot pursuit, with every intention of recapturing RPM agreements and casting them back into their per se cells. It may be, however, that tying arrangements have already escaped without being detected, leaving a cunningly designed dummy under the blankets to fool the guards. Tying arrangements have always been the per se offense with a difference. A per se unlawful tying arrangement requires proof of market power in the tying

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

  • BakerHostetler (Washington)

Quotation

Lee Simowitz, The US Supreme Court reaffirms market power requirement to determine a tying arrangement as per se unlawful (Independent Ink), 1 March 2006, e-Competitions Bulletin Burden of proof, Art. N° 36105

Visites 1237

All issues

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