Herbert Hovenkamp, Dec 20, 2012
Notwithstanding hundreds of court decisions and scholarly articles, tying arrangements remain enigmatic. Conclusions that go to either extreme, per se legality or per se illegality, invariably make simplifying assumptions that frequently do not obtain. For example, by ignoring double marginalization or tying product price cuts it becomes very easy to prove that a wide-range of ties are anticompetitive. At the other extreme, by ignoring foreclosure possibilities one can readily conclude that ties are invariably benign. Even when one considers consumer welfare alone, the great majority of ties very likely are competitively benign, with a few exceptions that involve realistic threats of anticompetitive foreclosure.
Featured News
New Mexico Jury Orders Meta to Pay $375 Million in Consumer Protection Case
Mar 24, 2026 by
CPI
CVS Health Nears FTC Settlement Over Insulin Pricing Practices
Mar 24, 2026 by
CPI
South Korean Food Giant CJ Cheiljedang Apologizes Again in Sugar Collusion Case
Mar 24, 2026 by
CPI
EU Competition Chief to Press Big Tech on AI Power During US Visit
Mar 24, 2026 by
CPI
Colorado Eying Possible Do-Over of Landmark AI Law
Mar 24, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Data-Driven Competition
Mar 19, 2026 by
CPI
Data-Driven Competition: Implications For Enforcement and Merger Control
Mar 19, 2026 by
Alexandre de Corniere & Greg Taylor
From Tipping to Trustees: Why Data-Driven Markets Require Institutional Design, Not Optimization
Mar 19, 2026 by
Jens Prüfer & Paul de Bijl
Data Barriers to Entry: What We’ve Learned About Spotting Them and What We Still Don’t Know About Solutions
Mar 19, 2026 by
Bruno Carballa-Smichowski
When the Perfect Is the Enemy of the Good: Price Discrimination, Affordability, Precarity and Market Dynamism
Mar 19, 2026 by
Dan Ciuriak