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
Mexico Antitrust Authority Closes Android Competition Case After Google Commitments
Dec 18, 2025 by
CPI
LinkedIn Antitrust Settlement Faces Setback in California Court
Dec 18, 2025 by
CPI
India Regulator Reviews Antitrust Claims Against IndiGo After Widespread Flight Disruptions
Dec 18, 2025 by
CPI
Trump Media Broadens Ambitions, Entering Fusion Energy Through Major Merger
Dec 18, 2025 by
CPI
EU’s Digital Services Act Moves from Reports to Penalties as Platforms File Risk Disclosures
Dec 18, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 16, 2025 by
CPI
Learning from Divergence: The Role of Cross-Country Comparisons in the Evaluation of the DMA
Dec 16, 2025 by
Federico Bruni
New Regulatory Tools for the EU Foreign Direct Investment Screening and Foreign Subsidies Regulation
Dec 16, 2025 by
Ioannis Kokkoris
“Suite Dreams”: Market Definition and Complementarity in the Digital Age
Dec 16, 2025 by
Romain Bizet & Matteo Foschi
The Interaction Between Competition Policy and Consumer Protection: Institutional Design, Behavioral Insights, and Emerging Challenges in Digital Markets
Dec 16, 2025 by
Alessandra Tonazzi