By Douglas H. Ginsburg (DC Circuit) & Koren Wong-Ervin (Antitrust Partner at Axinn, Veltrop, & Harkrider LLP)
In the last year, officials at the U.S. Antitrust Agencies have taken a number of troubling positions with respect to what is required to challenge consummated mergers under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. These include: (1) the contention that Section 2 presents a “lower bar” than Section 7 of the Clayton Act in that Section 2 requires mere proof that the merger was “reasonably capable of” contributing significantly to the acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power; (2) suggestions that evidence of intent may be used as a proxy for probable harm; and (3) the idea that Section 2 can be used to challenge a series of acquisitions no one of which by itself was problematic but which together form an anticompetitive course of conduct. In this article we explain why these contentions are unfounded.
Featured News
UK Probes Lindab’s Acquisition of HAS-Vent Amid Fears of Market Monopoly
Apr 28, 2024 by
CPI
Shein Faces EU Regulations Over User Data
Apr 28, 2024 by
CPI
Google Fights Back Against US Antitrust Lawsuit
Apr 28, 2024 by
CPI
US Homeland Security Establishes Blue-Ribbon Board with Tech CEOs to Advise on AI
Apr 28, 2024 by
CPI
FTC Accuses Amazon Executives of Using Disappearing Messaging Apps to Conceal Evidence
Apr 28, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI