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
US Appeals Court Reinstates AI Pricing Antitrust Case Against Atlantic City Casinos
Jul 29, 2026 by
CPI
Democratic Senators Seek SEC Investigation Into Trump Media’s Premium
Jul 29, 2026 by
CPI
Publicis Challenges Naming in India Antitrust Investigation Before Delhi Court
Jul 29, 2026 by
CPI
Appeals Court Revives AI Hotel Pricing Antitrust Lawsuit Against Caesars, MGM
Jul 29, 2026 by
CPI
EU Warns FIFA Commercial Overhaul Could Violate Competition Law
Jul 29, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Antitrust Compliance
Jul 20, 2026 by
CPI
Your Antitrust Compliance Program: A Strong Voice in Your Defense
Jul 20, 2026 by
Joe Murphy
Antitrust Compliance for the AI Pricing Era
Jul 20, 2026 by
Alejandra Uria & Andre Geverola
Race to Report: Antitrust Leniency in the Whistleblower Era
Jul 20, 2026 by
Brian R. Faerstein & Nicole H. Sprinzen
Antitrust-By-Design: Competition Compliance in Digital Markets
Jul 20, 2026 by
Marcos Drummond Malvar, Gabriela Costa Carvalho Forsman & Luciana Mendes