Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Business Administration, Management, and Operations (1)
- Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics (1)
- Business Organizations Law (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Civil Procedure (1)
-
- Collective Bargaining (1)
- Commercial Law (1)
- Consumer Protection Law (1)
- Economic Policy (1)
- Economic Theory (1)
- Economics (1)
- Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law (1)
- Industrial Organization (1)
- Judges (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Labor Relations (1)
- Law and Economics (1)
- Law and Society (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Legal Profession (1)
- Legal Writing and Research (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation (1)
- Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Other Business
Antitrust Changeup: How A Single Antitrust Reform Could Be A Home Run For Minor League Baseball Players, Jeremy Ulm
Antitrust Changeup: How A Single Antitrust Reform Could Be A Home Run For Minor League Baseball Players, Jeremy Ulm
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act to protect competition in the marketplace. Federal antitrust law has developed to prevent businesses from exerting unfair power on their employees and customers. Specifically, the Sherman Act prevents competitors from reaching unreasonable agreements amongst themselves and from monopolizing markets. However, not all industries have these protections.
Historically, federal antitrust law has not governed the “Business of Baseball.” The Supreme Court had the opportunity to apply antitrust law to baseball in Federal Baseball Club, Incorporated v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs; however, the Court held that the Business of Baseball was not …
What’S In Your Wallet (And What Should The Law Do About It?), Natasha Sarin
What’S In Your Wallet (And What Should The Law Do About It?), Natasha Sarin
All Faculty Scholarship
In traditional markets, firms can charge prices that are significantly elevated relative to their costs only if there is a market failure. However, this is not true in a two-sided market (like Amazon, Uber, and Mastercard), where firms often subsidize one side of the market and generate revenue from the other. This means consideration of one side of the market in isolation is problematic. The Court embraced this view in Ohio v. American Express, requiring that anticompetitive harm on one side of a two-sided market be weighed against benefits on the other side.
Legal scholars denounce this decision, which, …