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
Live Nation Pushes Back on States’ Renewed Bid for DOJ Settlement Records
Oct 4, 2026 by
CPI
California Subpoenas OpenAI as Scrutiny of AI Cybersecurity Risks Grows
Oct 4, 2026 by
CPI
Thomson Reuters Faces Antitrust Suit Over $650 Million Casetext Acquisition
Oct 4, 2026 by
CPI
Sandoz Agrees to $400 Million Deal to Resolve States’ Generic-Drug Antitrust Case
Oct 4, 2026 by
CPI
Amazon e-Book Buyers Move Closer to Class Certification in Antitrust Case
Oct 4, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – National Security
Sep 22, 2026 by
CPI
National Security in U.S. Antitrust Enforcement: Toward a More Disciplined Framework
Sep 22, 2026 by
Rod Rosenstein & Timothy Finley
The Department of War’s M&A Review Guidance: What Companies in the Defense Industry Need to Know
Sep 22, 2026 by
Eric Stocking & Paul Ney
National Security, Resilience and the Boundaries of Merger Control
Sep 22, 2026 by
Beatriz Marques
National Security and Competition: Building Resilient Telecommunications Networks
Sep 22, 2026 by
Roslyn Layton