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
TikTok Hit with Lawsuits from 13 US States and DC
Oct 8, 2024 by
CPI
Merck Wins Antitrust Immunity in Mumps Vaccine Case, U.S. Court Rules
Oct 8, 2024 by
CPI
UK Government Launches New Agency to Fast-Track Tech Regulation
Oct 8, 2024 by
CPI
McDonald’s Sues Beef Giants, Accusing Them of Price-Fixing Conspiracy
Oct 8, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Orders Google to Open Android App Store Amid Antitrust Pressure
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
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