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
Compass Faces New Federal Antitrust Fight Over Private Home Listings
Oct 22, 2026 by
CPI
Deutsche Boerse’s $6 Billion Allfunds Deal Faces EU Decision by Nov. 27
Oct 22, 2026 by
CPI
German Court Orders MAN, Daimler Truck to Compensate Customers in Price-Fixing Case
Oct 22, 2026 by
CPI
FTC Brings Antitrust Enforcement to Dallas
Oct 22, 2026 by
CPI
Publishers Urge EU, UK Regulators to Block Meta’s New Terms
Oct 22, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – EU Merger Guidelines
Oct 19, 2026 by
CPI
In Praise of Theories of Benefits
Oct 19, 2026 by
Cyril Hariton & Pierre Regibeau
Closing the Efficiencies Gap
Oct 19, 2026 by
Kasia Czapracka & Marika Harjula
Analysis of Dynamic Trade-Offs Under the New Guidelines: Would Cases Like Amazon/Irobot Turn Out Differently?
Oct 19, 2026 by
Oliver Latham, Sam Marden, Saul Mendelsohn & Serge Moresi
Exploitative Portfolio Effects In EU Merger Control: From Mars/Kellanova to the Draft Merger Guidelines
Oct 19, 2026 by
Niels Baeten, Danette Chan & Elizabeth Malik