Daniel Crane, Dec 20, 2012
Brantley raises important issues of law, economics, and policy about tying arrangements. Under current legal principles, Brantley was on solid ground in distinguishing between anticompetitive ties and those that might harm consumer interests without impairing competition. As a mat- ter of economics, the court was also right to reject the claim that the cable programmers forced consumers to pay for programs the customers didn’t want. The hardest question is a policy one- whether antitrust law should ever condemn the exploitation of market power in ways that extract surplus from consumers but do not create or enlarge market power. I shall argue that Brantley got this last question right as well.
Featured News
Trump Administration Defends Pentagon Blacklisting of AI Firm Anthropic in Court Filing
Mar 18, 2026 by
CPI
BMG Sues Anthropic Over Alleged Use of Song Lyrics in AI Training
Mar 18, 2026 by
CPI
Google Proposes New Search Controls Amid UK Competition Scrutiny
Mar 18, 2026 by
CPI
US Appeals Court Revives Whistleblower Case Against Major Drugmakers Over Pricing Program
Mar 18, 2026 by
CPI
Possible Compromise Emerging on Stablecoin Yield Payments in Senate Market-Structure Bill
Mar 18, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Behavioral Economics
Feb 22, 2026 by
CPI
Behavioral Antitrust in 2026
Feb 22, 2026 by
Maurice Stucke
Behavioral Economics in Competition Policy: Going Beyond Inertia and Framing Effects
Feb 22, 2026 by
Annemieke Tuinstra & Richard May
Agreeing to Disagree in Antitrust
Feb 22, 2026 by
Jorge Padilla
Recognizing What’s Around the Corner: Merger Control, Capabilities, and the New Nature of Potential Competition
Feb 22, 2026 by
Magdalena Kuyterink & David J. Teece