Barry Nalebuff, Nov 01, 2009
Elhauge (2009) provides a wide-ranging article that is impressive both in its clarity and its holistic attack on the practice of bundling and tying. In this commentary, I will focus my attention on one aspect of his presentation, namely the effect of price discrimination via metering and tying on consumer welfare and total welfare. Elhauge makes the claim that we should not suppose that the total welfare effects of price discrimination are positive. Even if they are, he suggests that this perspective is too narrow; a price-discriminating monopolist will make more money and so may incur greater ex ante costs to secure its market position. And if total welfare still rises after taking these costs into account, Elhauge makes the further argument that antitrust is and should be focused on consumer welfare, not total welfare. In that domain, the presumption should be that price discrimination lowers consumer welfare.
Links to Full Content
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