The Appropriate Legal Standard and Sufficient Economic Evidence for Exclusive Dealing Under Section 2: The FTC’s McWane Case
Posted by Social Science Research Network
The Appropriate Legal Standard and Sufficient Economic Evidence for Exclusive Dealing Under Section 2: The FTC’s McWane Case – Steven C. Salop (Georgetown University Law Center), Sharis A. Pozen (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP) and John R. Seward (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP)
ABSTRACT: The FTC recently found McWane, Inc. liable for unlawful monopoly maintenance by a 3-1 majority. The dispute among the FTC Commissioners raises important and interesting issues regarding the law and economics of exclusive dealing and the proper evaluation of the competitive effects of exclusionary conduct. Commissioner Wright’s Dissent proposes and utilizes a new legal standard that requires the plaintiff to show “clear evidence” of harm to competition before shifting the burden to the defendant to show procompetitive efficiency benefits. This burden of proof and production on the plaintiff is much higher than showing “probable effect” based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. Application of this higher burden to interbrand exclusivity restraints by monopolists is not supported either by the case law, economic theory or empirical evidence. In evaluating harm to competition, this legal standard places no weight on certain important factors, including the fact that McWane was a monopolist with the explicit purpose of raising the costs and reducing the distribution of its only competitors. His proposed standard also does not consider whether McWane’s efficiency claims were valid, in the absence of other clear evidence of competitive harm. Commissioner Wright limits his economic analysis to only a single possible mechanism of exclusionary effect, whether the entrant was prevented from reaching minimum efficient scale of production, rather than a broader analysis of whether the entrant’s costs were raised or whether its ability to expand output was so limited by the exclusives that it was unable to prevent the maintenance of McWane’s monopoly pricing. Commissioner Wright also fails to credit the direct evidence of price effects found by the Commission. In our view, this proposed type of legal standard and economic approach is not an “enquiry meet for the case.” It creates a serious risk of leading to false negatives, under-enforcement and under-deterrence.
Featured News
Turkey Fines Meta $10.4 Million for Abusing Market Dominance
May 6, 2024 by
CPI
Canadian Watchdog Launches Inquiry into Lululemon’s Greenwashing Practices
May 6, 2024 by
CPI
Massachusetts Supreme Court Deliberates Ballot Redefining Gig Worker Status
May 6, 2024 by
CPI
European Commission Approves Nippon Steel’s $14.9 Billion Buyout of U.S. Steel
May 6, 2024 by
CPI
Banco Sabadell Rejects Rival BBVA Merger Proposal
May 6, 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