A PYMNTS Company

Does Prohibiting ‘Lock-In’ Improve Aftermarket Outcomes? Evidence from the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act

By  |  October 26, 2012

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    James C. Cooper (George Mason University School of Law) asks Does Prohibiting ‘Lock-In’ Improve Aftermarket Outcomes? Evidence from the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act

    ABSTRACT: Because a patient must have a prescription to purchase contact lenses, prescribing eye care professional (ECPs) have incentives to take advantage of locked-in patients. I use the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act (FCLCA) – which outlawed lock-in – as a natural experiment to perform (to my knowledge) the first empirical examination of the effect of lock-in on aftermarket prices. Examination of the pre- and post-FCLCA price gap between ECPs and online sellers indicates that pricing in the contact lens market has not systematically changed since FCLCA. One conjecture from these results is that search costs may be responsible for persistent ECP premiums in this market. To the extent that they are generalizable, these results also indicate that the current antitrust treatment of power derived from proprietary aftermarkets may be welfare reducing.