Herbert Hovenkamp, Dec 20, 2012
Notwithstanding hundreds of court decisions and scholarly articles, tying arrangements remain enigmatic. Conclusions that go to either extreme, per se legality or per se illegality, invariably make simplifying assumptions that frequently do not obtain. For example, by ignoring double marginalization or tying product price cuts it becomes very easy to prove that a wide-range of ties are anticompetitive. At the other extreme, by ignoring foreclosure possibilities one can readily conclude that ties are invariably benign. Even when one considers consumer welfare alone, the great majority of ties very likely are competitively benign, with a few exceptions that involve realistic threats of anticompetitive foreclosure.
Featured News
ICE’s $6 Billion MarketAxess Takeover Advances After US Antitrust Clearance
Oct 25, 2026 by
CPI
McCormick’s $44.8 Billion Unilever Food Deal Clears Key US Antitrust Hurdle
Oct 25, 2026 by
CPI
EU Launches Antitrust Probe Into Key Paper-Making Material
Oct 25, 2026 by
CPI
UK Seeks Exemption From EU Technology Rules as Trade Tensions Grow
Oct 25, 2026 by
CPI
Live Nation Reveals Trump Attended White House Antitrust Settlement Meeting
Oct 25, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – EU Merger Guidelines
Oct 19, 2026 by
CPI
In Praise of Theories of Benefits
Oct 19, 2026 by
Cyril Hariton & Pierre Regibeau
Closing the Efficiencies Gap
Oct 19, 2026 by
Kasia Czapracka & Marika Harjula
Analysis of Dynamic Trade-Offs Under the New Guidelines: Would Cases Like Amazon/Irobot Turn Out Differently?
Oct 19, 2026 by
Oliver Latham, Sam Marden, Saul Mendelsohn & Serge Moresi
Exploitative Portfolio Effects In EU Merger Control: From Mars/Kellanova to the Draft Merger Guidelines
Oct 19, 2026 by
Niels Baeten, Danette Chan & Elizabeth Malik