Daniel Crane, Dec 20, 2012
Brantley raises important issues of law, economics, and policy about tying arrangements. Under current legal principles, Brantley was on solid ground in distinguishing between anticompetitive ties and those that might harm consumer interests without impairing competition. As a mat- ter of economics, the court was also right to reject the claim that the cable programmers forced consumers to pay for programs the customers didn’t want. The hardest question is a policy one- whether antitrust law should ever condemn the exploitation of market power in ways that extract surplus from consumers but do not create or enlarge market power. I shall argue that Brantley got this last question right as well.
Featured News
NY Laws Requires Disclosure of AI Actors in Ads, Limit Use of Person’s Image After Death
Dec 12, 2025 by
CPI
Three More States to Throw the Switch on Comprehensive Privacy Rules in 2026.
Dec 12, 2025 by
CPI
Dozens of State AGs Demand AI Companies Fix ‘Delusion’ Outputs by Chatbots
Dec 11, 2025 by
CPI
Texas Sues Epic Systems, Accusing Health-Tech Giant of Anticompetitive Data Practices
Dec 11, 2025 by
CPI
Court Affirms Apple Injunction but Trims Limits in Epic Dispute
Dec 11, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Acqui-hiring
Dec 11, 2025 by
CPI
Anticompetitive Effects of Acquihires: Labor and Product Markets
Dec 11, 2025 by
Heski Bar-Isaac, Justin Johnson & Volker Nocke
Acquihires In the Technology Sector: Antitrust Scrutiny Through the Lens of Economics
Dec 11, 2025 by
Juliette Caminade, Rebecca Kirk Fair, Zsolt Udvari & Jeanne Vellard Smith
M&A in the AI Era: Considerations for Acquihiring
Dec 11, 2025 by
Ingrid Vandenborre, Kenneth Schwartz, Christopher Barlow, Page Griffin, Michael Cardella, Stuart Levi, Taylor Votek, Benjamin Salzer, Lisa G. Liu & Liz Kraus
Lock Them Up, or Take No Prisoners? Merger Policy and Acquiring AI Talent: Human Rights and Other Inconvenient Facts
Dec 11, 2025 by
Simon R. Pritchard