Sherman Anti-Trust Act Checklist

ANTITRUST CHECK LIST

HORIZONTAL ARRANGEMENTS

 

A.    Horizontal Price Fixing (ShermanAct §1)

1. Current Law—Illegal Per Se (Socony-Vacuum)
2. Exceptions: if fits one of permissible factors then rule of reason is applied
3. Justifications making it Rule of Reason/ Defenses:

• Improvement of market conditions (Chicago Board)
• Unsuccessful cartel/monopoly (U.S. Steel)
• Aggregate data dissemination/trade association (Maple Flooring)
• Price/market stabilization (Appalachian Coal)
• Safety defense (National Society of Professional Engineers) (rejected excuse)
• Public interest/education (BrownUniversity)
• State action doctrine
• Efficiency through integration (BMI)
• Product is competition itself/necessity of regulation (NCAA)
• Parent-subsidiary (Copperweld)
• Open competition plan/firm specific data dissemination (American Column)
• Reasonable prices (Trenton Potteries)
• Learned profession (Goldfarb)
• Horizontal maximum price fixing (Maricopa)
• Structure of industry
• Cartel behavior
• Public interest served
• Facts peculiar to firm’s operation
• History and duration
• Homogeneity of products
• Inelasticity of demand
• Elimination of service and quality competition

4. Rejected justifications:

5. General Rule of Reason Analysis Factors:

6.  Suspicious Factors suggesting Price Fixing

1. a.      fungible commodity/product homogeneity
2. b.      highly price inelastic demand (no good substitutes)
3. c.       excess capacity
4. d.      high barriers to entry
5. e.       lots of entry in time of excess capacity
6. f.       market concentration
7. g.      conscious parallelism (disguised price fixing)

***  Suggestive factors lead to qualified per se rule (Container Corporation)

 

B.  Market Division (Sherman Act §1)

1. Current Law—Per Se Illegal (BRG of Georgia)
2. Factors in Analysis:

• Relevant geographic market
• Economic effect
• Components of same entity
• Free riders
• Cooperative association (Topco)

3. Rejected Justification:

 

C.  Group Boycotts (ShermanAct §1 + FTCA §5)

1. 1.      Current Law—Per Se Illegal if have Market Power  (Northwest Stationary)
2. 2.      Factors in Analysis:

• Alternative means of redress
• Barrier entry
• Common plan/boycott behavior
• Product need not be essential
• Market power or absence thereof (+25% >)

1. 3.      Rejected Justifications:

• Public policy
• Free riders

1. 4.      Potential Justifications:

• Free riders possibly/economic efficiencies
• Heavily regulated industries/due process (Silver)
• Absence of market power leads to rule of reason (Northwest Stationary)
• Efficiency through integration (Rothery)

 

1. D.    Monopolization (Sherman Act §2)
   1. Current law—Rule of Reason (Alcoa)
      1. a.      possession of market power
      2. b.      willful acquisition or maintenance of that power
      3. Justifications/Defenses:

• Thrust upon
• Natural monopoly
• Achieved by natural growth
• Legitimate business reasons
• United Shoe Fiasco

1. Rejected Justifications:
2. Factors in Analysis:

• Geographic and product market
• Price elasticity of demand
• Unreasonable restraint on trade
• Efficiency
• Mere size not determinative (US Steel Corp)
• Intent of monopolist (Aspen Skiing Co.)
• Barriers to entry

 

1. Impermissible Monopoly

• Essential monopoly doctrine

1. control
2. b.      inability to duplicate
3. c.       denial of use
4. d.      feasibility

• hoarding a critical raw material
• coercing supplier to deal or to charge higher prices

 

1. E.     Predatory Pricing (Clayton §2)
   1. 1.      Current Law—Illegal Per Se
   2. 2.      Determing if Predatory Pricing Exists:
      1. a.      price below VC (variable cost) suggests predatory pricing (Areeda and Turner)
      2. b.      price below MC
      3. Factors in Analysis:
         1. almost impossible achieve (McGee)
         2. duration of process (Matsushita)
         3. absence of motive
         4. practice in foreign market not determinative of domestic market
         5. actual harm, not speculative

 

1. F.     Mergers (Clayton §7)
   1. a.      relevant market (product + geographic)
   2. b.      effect of merger substantial lessen competition

1. Current Law—Rule of Reason
2. Analysis:

3. Analysis Factors:

• Avoids concentration in incipiency
• Market foreclosure
• Market share
• Trend toward concentration
• Reason for trend
• Number of firms
• HHI/DOJ guidelines
• Elimination of potential competitor/ What would happened without merger?
• Overlapping markets
• Barriers to entry
• Potential reciprocity

4. Relevant Markets:

a.  Product Market

• Outer boundaries of product market are determined by cross-elasticity of demand (Brown Shoe)
• Substitutability  (Continental Can)

b.  Geographic Market

• Defined by effect on competition (PNB)
• Failing firm defense
• Efficiency through integration

5. Defenses:

 

 

1. G.    Antitrust Standing/Private Litigant

1. injury type antitrust law were intended to avoid
2. direct injury

 

1. VERTICAL ARRANGEMENTS

 

1. Resale Price Maintenance (ShermanAct §1)
2. Current Law— 
   1.  Minimum price fixing is Per Se Illegal with Exceptions
   2.  Maximum is Rule of Reason looking for anticompetitve effects(State Oil)
   3. Exceptions to Minimum:
      1. must have actual agreement
      2. direct agents or on consignment allowed (no passing of title)

 

1. Factors of Analysis for Minimum Price  Fixing:

• Suggest retail price allowed
• Unilateral actions allowed
• Means of agreement
• Boycott can achieve (Klor’s, Inc.)
• Vertical minimum price fixing = horizontal minimum price fixing
• Compare with vertical non-price restraints

1. Factors of Analysis for Maximum Price Fixing:

• Conscious parallelism is permissible
• Vertical maximum price fixing = horizontal maximum fixing

1. Defenses:

• License of Patent (GE)

 

1. Territorial Allocation
2. Current Law—Rule of Reason (Sylvania)
3. Factors of Analysis:

• Intrabrand vs. interbrand
• Efficiency
• Effect on competition
• Avoids free riding
• Agent-dealer distinction not used
• Small or failing firm

 

1. EXCLUSIVE DEALING (Clayton §3)
2. Current Law—Rule of Reason unless Substantial Share of  the Market
3. Factors of Analysis:

• Share of market/foreclosure of market share
• Positive economic effect

1. both parties can plan operation
2. reduces risk of opportunistic behavior
3. protects reputation

• Likelihood conduct will cause anticompetitve effects

 

1. TYING (Sherman§1, Clayton §3)
2. Current Law:JeffersonParish Test
   1. one product or two
   2. market power with tying product
   3. likelihood of obtaining market power with the tied product
   4. efficiency factors
   5. Factors of Analysis:

• Effect on competition related to tied product
• Beneficial effects of tying
• abuse monopoly power
• separate products
• Method of implementing prices
• Increased barriers to entry
• Franchise generally single product
• Single brand can be the relevant market (Eastman Kodak)
• Future integration possible
• Sophistication of customers

1. Defenses:

• New industry defense

 

1. JURISDICTION/PROCEDURES

 

1. Interstate Commerce
2. Current Law—Must be in interstate commerce antitrust laws to apply
3. Analysis Factors:

• Focus on defendant’s conduct (Summit)
• Manufacture not commerce
• Effects must be felt withinUnited States

 

1. Patent Law
2. Patent May assign rights (i.e. through license)
3. Patent Pools are legitimate Settlement of disputes

 

1. Filed Rate Doctrine
2. Antitrust law does not apply to rates filed with a regulatory agency
3. Rate cannot be challenged because state action doctrine

 

1. State Action Doctrine
2. Current Law—Midcal Test
   1. policy must be articulated and affirmatively expressed by state
   2. actively supervised by state
   3. Factors of Analysis:

• Part one—state is only legislature
• Policy must be clear
• Municipality bestowed with specific powers from state legislature—satisfies Midcal one and two
• City government cannot be sued for treble damages—only injunction
• Compulsion not necessary, authorization  sufficient (Southern Motor Carrier)
• Permissive regulation doesn’t satisfy active supervision (Ticor)
• Judicial review inadequate for state supervision
• Peer review committees are agents of state if satisfy due process
• Noer-Pennington Doctrine

1. sham exception
2. International Jurisdiction
3. jurisdiction—conduct outside US , must have substantial effects within US
4. comity—if conflicting laws, must be compelled by foreign entity, otherwise within jurisdiction