Herbert Hovenkamp, Apr 01, 2006
The success of the Areeda-Turner test for predatory pricing and the U.S. Supreme Court’s adoption of demanding proof requirements in its 1993 Brooke Group decision have made it very difficult for plaintiffs to win conventional predatory pricing claims. While many challenges to exclusionary pricing continue to be made, the legal theory has evolved away from classical predation to a variety of other theories. This paper examines the state of the law of both conventional predatory pricing and these recent variants and offers some recommendations.
Featured News
Film Producers Raise Antitrust Concerns Over Paramount-Warner Deal
Jul 30, 2026 by
CPI
EU Signals ChatGPT, Roblox Could Face Expanded Digital Services Rules
Jul 30, 2026 by
CPI
OpenAI, Trump Administration Discuss Voluntary AI Safety Testing
Jul 30, 2026 by
CPI
SAP Says German Antitrust Authority Ends Preliminary Review Without Formal Case
Jul 30, 2026 by
CPI
Keystone Launches Washington Antitrust Practice With 2 Former DOJ Officials
Jul 30, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Antitrust Compliance
Jul 20, 2026 by
CPI
Your Antitrust Compliance Program: A Strong Voice in Your Defense
Jul 20, 2026 by
Joe Murphy
Antitrust Compliance for the AI Pricing Era
Jul 20, 2026 by
Alejandra Uria & Andre Geverola
Race to Report: Antitrust Leniency in the Whistleblower Era
Jul 20, 2026 by
Brian R. Faerstein & Nicole H. Sprinzen
Antitrust-By-Design: Competition Compliance in Digital Markets
Jul 20, 2026 by
Marcos Drummond Malvar, Gabriela Costa Carvalho Forsman & Luciana Mendes