Tied and True Exclusion: Comment on Jean Tirole’s “The Analysis of Tying Cases”
The takeaway point of Tirole’s excellent primer is that tying, while potentially exclusionary, does not deserve special treatment. This commentary offers two reasons why tying should be accorded special treatment. First, unlike predatory pricing, tying offers a monopolist the ability to engage in no-cost predation. A critical component of the predatory pricing test is that the monopolist will be able to later recoup its sacrificed profits. If foreclosure can be accomplished without pricing below cost, then this makes tying a potentially more dangerous tool for anticompetitive conduct. Second, tying allows a firm to leverage its monopoly from one market to another. It can exclude an equally efficient competitor, where the rival has all of the same economies of scale and scope. To the extent that tying allows a monopolist to disrupt competition in a large number of adjacent or even unrelated markets, this vastly increases the potential harm caused by a monopoly.
Links to Full Content
Featured News
Canada Investigates Major Grocers for Anticompetitive Practices
May 26, 2024 by
CPI
John Hess Scrambles to Secure Shareholder Approval for $53 Billion Chevron Merger
May 26, 2024 by
CPI
Petrobras Retains Refineries and Gas Pipeline in CADE’s Landmark Reversal
May 26, 2024 by
CPI
Meta Proposes New Data Limits on Facebook Marketplace in UK Amid CMA Oversight
May 26, 2024 by
CPI
EU Industry Chief Calls for Unified Tech Regulations Between US and Europe
May 26, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Merger Guidelines Retrospective
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
Mergers of Complements
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
Personality Traits, Private Equity, and Merger Analysis
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
The 2023 Merger Guidelines: Lessons in the Importance of Incipiency, Modern Economics, and Monopsony
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
The 2023 Merger Guidelines: Sharpening Merger Analysis
May 21, 2024 by
CPI