Posted by Social Science Research Network
Antitrust in Zero-Price Markets: Applications John M. Newman (University of Memphis)
Abstract: “Free” products have exploded in popularity along with widespread Internet adoption — but many of them are not truly free. Customers often transfer something of value, typically their attention or personal information, in order to access zero-price products. This dynamic brings zero-price markets within the scope of antitrust law. Unfortunately, despite the critical role that such products now play in modern economies, the antitrust enterprise has failed to adequately account for the unique attributes of zero-price markets. Particularly in view of the rising tide of antitrust investigations and litigation targeting high-profile suppliers of zero-price products, this failure is indefensible.
This Article identifies and addresses several foundational aspects of antitrust law that are challenged by zero prices. First, as to consumer standing, it establishes that attention and information qualify as “property” under the Clayton Act. Second, it proposes altering the traditional tests for market definition and market power by, among other things, implementing a “SSNIC” variant of the hypothetical-monopolist test. It also suggests that analysts should incorporate into such inquiries behavioral-economics research demonstrating the “zero-price effect.” Third, this Article demonstrates the unviability of the “free goods defense.” Fourth, it proposes damages-valuation methods that do not depend on unreliable stated preferences. Finally, it surveys and critiques the existing antitrust case law involving conduct in zero-price markets by Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and others.
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh