Posted by Social Science Research Network
The Meaning of Vertical Agreement and the Structure of Competition Law
Louis Kaplow (Harvard)
Abstract: Competition law’s vertical agreement requirement is widely regarded to be perplexing and to offer a fairly limited unilateral action defense. These views prove to be understated. The underlying distinction is incoherent on a number of levels and difficult to reconcile with pertinent statutes, precedent, and practice. The requirement has little nexus with competition policy, and its satisfaction may even be associated with less, not more, anticompetitive danger. Furthermore, reflection on the thinness or nonexistence of the vertical agreement requirement renders problematic a central feature of competition law: the aim to subject myriad everyday actions of countless firms to more lenient scrutiny than that applicable to agreements, which on reflection are ever-present.
Featured News
Google ExecAdmitted Firm’s Goal Was to “Crush” Digital Ad Rivals, According to Court Docs
Sep 11, 2024 by
CPI
Former Michigan Football Stars File $50 Million Antitrust Lawsuit Against NCAA
Sep 11, 2024 by
CPI
Oasis Fans Could Be in Line for Ticket Refunds Amid Antitrust Concerns
Sep 11, 2024 by
CPI
FCC Chair Calls for More Competition to SpaceX’s Starlink Network
Sep 11, 2024 by
CPI
Singapore Salon Director Jailed for Contempt in Consumer Protection Case
Sep 11, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Canada & Mexico
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Competitive Convergence: Mexico’s 30-Year Quest for Antitrust Parity with its Northern Neighbor
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Competition and Digital Markets in North America: A Comparative Study of Antitrust Investigations in Mexico and the United States
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Recent Antitrust Development in Mexico: COFECE’s Preliminary Report on Amazon and Mercado Libre
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
The Cost of Making COFECE Disappear
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI