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
Toast Faces FTC Lawsuit Over Alleged Hidden Fees and Subscription Practices
Oct 29, 2026 by
CPI
Amazon, Uber and Instacart Challenge NYC Delivery Worker Protections in Federal Court
Oct 29, 2026 by
CPI
Wall Street Law Giant Weil Gotshal to Dissolve After Partner Exodus
Oct 29, 2026 by
CPI
DoorDash to Acquire Instacart in $17 Billion Grocery Delivery Deal
Oct 29, 2026 by
CPI
Anthropic Urges California to Give Courts Power to Block High-Risk AI Models
Oct 29, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Exclusive Dealing
Oct 25, 2026 by
CPI
Exclusive Dealing Without Exclusivity: Screening Contracts, Loyalty Rebates, and the Limits of Antitrust Tests
Oct 25, 2026 by
David Martimort & Jérôme Pouyet
When Competition for Exclusivity Raises Prices: Rebates, Pricing Rules, and the Insulin Puzzle
Oct 25, 2026 by
Daniel P. O’Brien & Greg Shaffer
Why Leaving the Door Open Can Be (Much) Worse Than Closing It: Share-Based Requirements, Buyer-Specific Costs, and Foreclosure
Oct 25, 2026 by
Zhijun Chen & Greg Shaffer
Antitrust Chronicle® – EU Merger Guidelines
Oct 19, 2026 by
CPI