CASE COMMENTS: EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL LAW – UNITED STATES – PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT – ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLISE – PRICE SQUEEZE – REFUSAL TO DEAL – PREDATORY PRICING

United States: The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa grants motion to dismiss antitrust claims against soda producer based on alleged “price squeeze” (Mahaska Bottling v. PepsiCo)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article in French, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. In a decision of 15 September 2017, the Federal Court for the Southern District of Iowa had to rule on an alleged attempt at monopolisation, itself based on pricing practices implemented by one of the giants in the soft drinks industry, the company PepsiCo. The complainant, an independent bottler, believed that it was the victim of margin squeeze, predatory pricing and refusal to contract practices which were intended to enable PepsiCo to gain a foothold in the soft drinks and bottling market. In addition to the interest in exploring the soft drinks sector in the United States, the case is interesting in that it allows the court to revisit the

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

Quotation

Jean-Christophe Roda, United States: The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa grants motion to dismiss antitrust claims against soda producer based on alleged “price squeeze” (Mahaska Bottling v. PepsiCo), 15 September 2017, Concurrences N° 1-2018, Art. N° 86281, pp. 211-214

Visites 133

All reviews