By Douglas H. Ginsburg (DC Circuit) & Koren Wong-Ervin (Antitrust Partner at Axinn, Veltrop, & Harkrider LLP)
In the last year, officials at the U.S. Antitrust Agencies have taken a number of troubling positions with respect to what is required to challenge consummated mergers under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. These include: (1) the contention that Section 2 presents a “lower bar” than Section 7 of the Clayton Act in that Section 2 requires mere proof that the merger was “reasonably capable of” contributing significantly to the acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power; (2) suggestions that evidence of intent may be used as a proxy for probable harm; and (3) the idea that Section 2 can be used to challenge a series of acquisitions no one of which by itself was problematic but which together form an anticompetitive course of conduct. In this article we explain why these contentions are unfounded.
Featured News
Antitrust Lawsuit Targets RTX’s Pratt & Whitney Canada
May 14, 2024 by
CPI
Former Sales Pro Admits to Bid Rigging Targeting US Schools
May 13, 2024 by
CPI
Macron Advocates EU Financial Integration Amid Push for Global Competitiveness
May 13, 2024 by
CPI
Microsoft Faces EU Antitrust Charges Over Teams Software
May 13, 2024 by
CPI
EU Antitrust Complaint Filed Against Edwards Lifesciences by Indian Rival Meril
May 13, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Ecosystems
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Mapping Antitrust onto Digital Ecosystems
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Ecosystems and Competition Law: A Law and Political Economy Approach
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Ecosystem Theories of Harm: What is Beyond the Buzzword?
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Open Ecosystems: Benefits, Challenges, and Implications for Antitrust
May 9, 2024 by
CPI