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
Canada Competition Bureau, Empire Settle Grocery Property-Control Probe
Sep 22, 2026 by
CPI
DoorDash $131.5 Million Settlement Puts New Focus on Gig Economy Regulation
Sep 22, 2026 by
CPI
UN Chief Presses for Global AI Framework With Independent Oversight
Sep 22, 2026 by
CPI
Uber’s $14.8 Billion Delivery Hero Deal Faces Korean Antitrust Scrutiny
Sep 22, 2026 by
CPI
Paramount Settlement Draws Criticism as Bonta Defends Deal
Sep 22, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – National Security
Sep 22, 2026 by
CPI
National Security in U.S. Antitrust Enforcement: Toward a More Disciplined Framework
Sep 22, 2026 by
Rod Rosenstein & Timothy Finley
The Department of War’s M&A Review Guidance: What Companies in the Defense Industry Need to Know
Sep 22, 2026 by
Eric Stocking & Paul Ney
National Security, Resilience and the Boundaries of Merger Control
Sep 22, 2026 by
Beatriz Marques
National Security and Competition: Building Resilient Telecommunications Networks
Sep 22, 2026 by
Roslyn Layton