For more than a century, anti-coercion has been a foundational principle for refusals to deal and anti-monopolization law in general. Since 2004, however, the Supreme Court has disregarded anti-coercion as an essential aspect underlying the legality of refusals to deal. Reviving this principle is critical to restoring refusals to deal as a viable and robust antitrust claim against monopolists.
By Daniel A. Hanley[1]
I. INTRODUCTION
Refusals to deal occur when a firm ceases engaging in business
...THIS ARTICLE IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR IP ADDRESS 3.236.86.184
Please verify email or join us to access premium content!