Herbert Hovenkamp, Apr 01, 2006
The success of the Areeda-Turner test for predatory pricing and the U.S. Supreme Court’s adoption of demanding proof requirements in its 1993 Brooke Group decision have made it very difficult for plaintiffs to win conventional predatory pricing claims. While many challenges to exclusionary pricing continue to be made, the legal theory has evolved away from classical predation to a variety of other theories. This paper examines the state of the law of both conventional predatory pricing and these recent variants and offers some recommendations.
Featured News
Paul, Weiss Adds Veteran Antitrust Lawyer to Washington Office
Feb 2, 2026 by
CPI
Farmers Take Union Pacific and K&O to Court Over Alleged Rail Fee Scheme
Feb 2, 2026 by
CPI
Erli Accuses Allegro of Abusing Market Power in New Legal Battle
Feb 2, 2026 by
CPI
Devon, Coterra Strike $58 Billion Deal to Build Shale Powerhouse
Feb 2, 2026 by
CPI
California Lawmakers Set to Take Up Expanded Antitrust Proposals After Commission Vote
Feb 2, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Hub-&-Spoke Conspiracies
Jan 26, 2026 by
CPI
A Data Analytics Company as the Hub in a Hub-and-Spoke Cartel
Jan 26, 2026 by
Joseph Harrington
Hub and Spoke Cartels
Jan 26, 2026 by
Patrick Van Cayseele
Hub-and-Spoke Collusion or Vertical Exclusion? Identifying the Rim in Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracies
Jan 26, 2026 by
Rosa Abrantes-Metz, Pedro Gonzaga, Laura Ildefonso & Albert Metz
The Algorithmic Middleman in a Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracy: Divergent Court Decisions and the Expanding Patchwork of State and Local Regulations
Jan 26, 2026 by
Bradley C. Weber