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
Turkey Widens Hazelnut Price-Fixing Probe to Ferrero, Six Other Companies
Nov 8, 2026 by
CPI
Medtronic Sued Over Alleged Monopoly in Surgical Stapler Market
Nov 8, 2026 by
CPI
Intesa Faces More Branch Sales to Secure Italy’s Approval for MPS Deal
Nov 8, 2026 by
CPI
DOJ Closes Antitrust Investigation as Fox Completes $22 Billion Roku Acquisition
Nov 8, 2026 by
CPI
NCAA Wins Federal Appeals Court Ruling on Five-Year Eligibility
Nov 8, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Exclusive Dealing
Oct 25, 2026 by
CPI
Exclusive Dealing Without Exclusivity: Screening Contracts, Loyalty Rebates, and the Limits of Antitrust Tests
Oct 25, 2026 by
David Martimort & Jérôme Pouyet
When Competition for Exclusivity Raises Prices: Rebates, Pricing Rules, and the Insulin Puzzle
Oct 25, 2026 by
Daniel P. O’Brien & Greg Shaffer
Why Leaving the Door Open Can Be (Much) Worse Than Closing It: Share-Based Requirements, Buyer-Specific Costs, and Foreclosure
Oct 25, 2026 by
Zhijun Chen & Greg Shaffer
Antitrust Chronicle® – EU Merger Guidelines
Oct 19, 2026 by
CPI