Law Commons^™

Monopolizing Digital Commerce, Herbert Hovenkamp

William & Mary Law Review

Section 2 of the Sherman Act condemns firms who “monopolize,” “attempt to monopolize,” or “combine or conspire” to monopolize—all without explanation. Section 2 is the antitrust law’s only provision that reaches entirely unilateral conduct, although it has often been used to reach collaborative conduct as well. In general, § 2 requires greater amounts of individually held market power than do the other antitrust statutes, but it is less categorical about conduct. With one exception, however, the statute reads so broadly that criticisms of the nature that it is outdated cannot be based on faithful readings of the text.

The one …

Impediments To Renewed And Reinvigorated Antitrust Enforcement, Edward D. Cavanagh

William & Mary Business Law Review

Antitrust Division head Jonathan Kanter recently proclaimed that “the era of lax enforcement is over, and the new era of vigorous and effective antitrust law enforcement has begun.” Federal enforcers have indeed been active; the DOJ has sued Google in two separate actions, and the FTC has brought an action against Facebook.

While bringing these cases is an important first step to achieving a more robust antitrust enforcement regime, a significant obstacle to an antitrust renaissance remains—overcoming the strong gravitational pull of Chicago School theory that has dominated antitrust thought for the past half-century. Chicago School principles have not kept …

The Factor/Element Distinction In Antitrust Litigation, Christopher R. Leslie

William & Mary Law Review

Most price-fixing litigation turns on whether the plaintiffs can present sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that the defendants did, in fact, conspire to raise prices. This generally entails the proffering of plus factors, a type of evidence that suggests parallel conduct by the defendants was the product of collusion, not independent decisions. As their name suggests, plus factors are just that—factors. Proving a collection of factors may be necessary for a plaintiff’s case, but no individual factor is ever required. If it were, it wouldn’t be a factor; it would be an element.

Several federal …

Hair On Fire: Why Companies Are Less Likely To Feel The Burn Under The Doj’S Newest Change To Antitrust Enforcement, Caroline M. Whitener

Pepperdine Law Review

In July 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division announced that in an effort to help companies avoid “‘hair on fire’ experiences,” Division prosecutors are now, despite previous hesitancy, encouraged to offer prosecution alternatives in the form of deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) and non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) to corporate antitrust violators. Alternative prosecution agreements, such as DPAs and NPAs, are contracts between the government and corporate wrongdoers that allow companies to delay or entirely avoid prosecution, provided the company adheres to the contract terms. Additionally, as a part of the policy change, DOJ antitrust prosecutors must evaluate a corporation’s preexisting …

Atomistic Antitrust, Robin C. Feldman, Mark A. Lemley

William & Mary Law Review

Antitrust is atomistic: deliberately focused on trees, not forests. It pays attention to the consequences of individual acts alleged to be anticompetitive.

That focus is misplaced. Companies and markets don't focus on one particular act to the exclusion of all else. Business strategy emphasizes holistic, integrated planning. And market outcomes aren't determined by a single act, but by the result of multiple acts by multiple parties in the overall context of the structure and characteristics of the market.

The atomistic nature of modern antitrust law causes it to miss two important classes of potential competitive harms. First, the focus on …

Old Macdonald Had A Trust: How Market Consolidation In The Agricultural Industry, Spurred On By A Lack Of Antitrust Law Enforcement, Is Destroying Small Agricultural Producers, Cody Mccracken

William & Mary Business Law Review

The U.S. agricultural industry is controlled by a handful of large corporations. Unprecedented levels of market consolidation has created a power disparity, where controlling corporations alone shape markets, often to the disadvantage of small agricultural producers. A primary, and often overlooked, cause of this consolidationdriven bargaining disadvantage, and its resulting harm, can be found in the lacking enforcement of the nation’s antitrust laws. Faulty metrics and lax legal interpretations employed by regulatory agencies have permitted large corporations to grab control of nearly every sector of the industry. From the seeds farmers plant to the markets they sell their goods into; …

A Machete For The Patent Thicket: Using Noerr-Pennington Doctrine’S Sham Exception To Challenge Abusive Patent Tactics By Pharmaceutical Companies, Lisa Orucevic

Vanderbilt Law Review

Outrageous drug prices have dominated news coverage of the American healthcare system for years. Yet despite widespread condemnation of skyrocketing drug prices, nothing seems to change. Pharmaceutical companies can raise drug prices with impunity because they hold patents on their drugs, which give them monopolies. These monopolies are only supposed to last twenty years, and then competing lower-cost drugs like generics can enter the market, driving down the costs of pharmaceuticals for all. But pharmaceutical companies have created “patent thickets,” dense webs of overlapping patents surrounding one drug, which have artificially extended the companies’ monopolies for years or even decades …

Treble, Treble Toil And Trouble: The New Per Se Rule As A Protection Against The Curse Of The "Supreme Evil", Seth Konopasek

William & Mary Business Law Review

The Supreme Court has called collusion between firms the “supreme evil” of antitrust. Despite public and private enforcement efforts, collusive firms and the cartels they form cost American consumers billions of dollars a year and undermine the virtues of our free market economy. The Chicago School theory of antitrust enforcement, which has dominated antitrust scholarship, vehemently disapproves of private antitrust actions that enable plaintiffs to recover treble damages. Recent scholarship, however, has rejected the Chicago School’s concerns of overdeterrence and embraced the treble damages remedy. This Note follows the recent scholarship and proposes the New Per Se Rule, which would …

Contested Places, Utility Pole Spaces: A Competition And Safety Framework For Analyzing Utility Pole Association Rules, Roles, And Risks, Catherine J.K. Sandoval

Catholic University Law Review

As climate change augurs longer wildfire seasons, safe, reliable, and competitive energy and communications markets depend on sound infrastructure and well-calibrated regulation. The humble wooden utility pole, first deployed in America in 1844 to extend telegraph service, forms the twenty-first century’s technological scaffold. Utility poles are increasingly contested places where competition, safety, and reliability meet. Yet, regulators and academics have largely overlooked the risks posed by century-old private utility pole associations in California, composed of private and public utility pole owners and some entities who attach facilities to utility poles. No academic articles have examined the rules, roles, and risks …

Labor Organization In Ride-Sharing—Unionization Or Cartelization?, Mark Anderson, Max Huffman

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

The sharing economy brings together the constituent parts of a business enterprise into a structure that, on its surface, resembles a business firm, but in crucial ways is nothing like the traditional firm. This includes the ownership of the primary capital assets used in the business, as well as one of the most fundamental features of a firm—the relationship with its labor force. Sharing economy workers are formally contractors, running small businesses as sole entrepreneurs, with the effect that they are excluded from many of the protections made available to workers across the economy. The result is a seeming disparity …

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 …

Artificial Stupidity, Clark D. Asay

William & Mary Law Review

Artificial intelligence is everywhere. And yet, the experts tell us, it is not yet actually anywhere. This is because we are yet to achieve artificial general intelligence, or artificially intelligent systems that are capable of thinking for themselves and adapting to their circumstances. Instead, all the AI hype—and it is constant—concerns narrower, weaker forms of artificial intelligence, which are confined to performing specific, narrow tasks. The promise of true artificial general intelligence thus remains elusive. Artificial stupidity reigns supreme.

What is the best set of policies to achieve more general, stronger forms of artificial intelligence? Surprisingly, scholars have paid little …

No-Fault Digital Platform Monopolization, Marina Lao

William & Mary Law Review

The power of today’s tech giants has prompted calls for changes in antitrust law and policy which, for decades, has been exceedingly permissive in merger enforcement and in constraining dominant firm conduct. Economically, the fear is that the largest digital platforms are so dominant and its data advantage so substantial that competition is foreclosed, resulting in long-term harm to consumers and to the economy. But the concerns extend beyond economics. Critics worry, too, that the large platforms’ tremendous economic power poses risks of social and political harm and threatens our democracy. These concerns have prompted discussions of ways to reinvigorate …

The Defend Trade Secrets Act And Foreign Theft: The Application Of The Act To Extraterritorial Misappropriation, John Dustin Hawkins

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

This Note explores the evolution of federal trade secret law in the United States, particularly the enactment of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. Part II discusses the legislative history of the Act, as well as key provisions and definitions of the Act, which are critical when considering the DTSA's extraterritorial application. Additionally, this Note considers the tests used by courts to determine extraterritorial application in other areas of U.S. law. Part III explains why a uniformly-applied balancing test would best serve the courts in determining the extraterritorial application of the DTSA to reach foreign conduct.

Uber's Efficiencies: A Modest Proposal For Limiting Use Of Antitrust's Per Se Rule, Kathleen Guilfoyle

University of Colorado Law Review

In antitrust law, the per se rule against horizontal price-fixing seems set in stone. Over time, however, antitrust enforcers and courts have declined to use this rule and instead have used the rule of reason. This change stems directly from the recognition that the per se rule's blunt application may end up harming consumers in some contexts. Using Uber as an example of a consumer-friendly, efficiencyenhancing business model, this Comment argues that using the per se rule to analyze horizontal arrangements like Uber's sacrifices consumer welfare. Instead, courts should use the rule of reason and engage in cost-benefit analysis where …

Movements, Moments, And The Eroding Antitrust Consensus, Michael Wolfe

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

Timothy Wu, The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age (Columbia Global Reports, 2018). $14.99.

Timothy Wu’s book, The Curse of Bigness, offers a brief history on and critical perspective of antitrust law’s development over the last century, calling for a return to a Brandeisian approach to the law. In this review-essay, I use Wu’s text as a starting point to explore antitrust law’s current political moment. Tracing the dynamics at play in this debate and Wu’s role in it, I note areas underexplored in Wu’s text regarding the interplay of antitrust law with other forms of …

American Oligarchy: How The Enfeebling Of Antitrust Law Corrodes The Republic, Zachariah Foge

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

In this note, I will argue that the current antitrust framework is misguided and based on erroneous legal and economic theories originating from the Chicago School. I will argue that the neoclassical approach is not only wrong when examining the legislative intent of Congress but is also in contravention with the policy goals and foundational principles of antitrust law. Furthermore, I will argue that the Chicago School’s narrow, outcome-based view of antitrust is ill-equipped to deal with the demands of the twenty-first century and especially with the online marketplace. The tech giants are unprecedented in their scale, and the online …

Accommodating Capital And Policing Labor: Antitrust In The Two Gilded Ages, Sandeep Vaheesan

Maryland Law Review

In enacting the antitrust laws, Congress sought to prevent big businesses from maintaining and augmenting their power through collusion, mergers, and exclusionary and predatory practices and also aimed to preserve the ability of workers to act in concert. At times, the antitrust laws have benefited ordinary Americans. Antitrust achievements include the restructuring of the oil industry in 1911, the creation of competitive market structures in the mid-twentieth century, and the termination of AT&T’s telecommunications monopoly in 1984.

Yet, the history of antitrust in the United States is not one of uninterrupted successes. Over two forty-year periods, the executive branch and …

The Blue Devil's In The Details: How A Free Market Approach To Compensating College Athletes Would Work, David A. Grenardo

Pepperdine Law Review

Everyone involved in the business of major college athletics, except the athletes, receives compensation based on a free market system. The National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) cap on athlete compensation violates antitrust law, and athletes should be allowed to earn their free market value as everyone else does in this country. This Article provides a detailed approach to compensating college athletes under a free market model, which includes a salary cap, the terms of a proposed standard player’s contract, a discussion of who can represent players, and payment simulations for football and basketball teams. A free market approach would not …

Given Today's New Wave Of Protectionsim, Is Antitrust Law The Last Hope For Preserving A Free Global Economy Or Another Nail In Free Trade's Coffin?, Allison Murray

Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review

No abstract provided.

Additive Manufacturing, Pay-For-Delay, And Mandatory Care: Is There Space For Positive Reform?, Jordan L. Jackson

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

It's Always Sunny In Florida: Reexamining The Role Of Energy Monopolies After Recent Solar Ballot Initiatives, Lauren Gillespie

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

A Prelude To Jenkins V. Ncaa: Amateurism, Antitrust Law, And The Role Of Consumer Demand In A Proper Rule Of Reason Analysis, Marc Edelman

Louisiana Law Review

The article focuses on prelude to the litigation in Jenkins v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the underlying antitrust challenges to the NCAA rules in the case O'Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association on the issue of consumer demand.

A Rose By Any Other Name: Elucidating The Intersection Of Patent And Antitrust Laws In Tying Arrangement Cases, Kyle R. Friedman

Maine Law Review

In Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., an ink manufacturer sought to invalidate patents held by a printing system manufacturer by alleging that the patents resulted in illegal tying and monopolization in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. This action was preceded by an infringement action brought by Illinois Tool Works (ITW), which was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Independent Ink (Independent) responded by seeking a judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of patents against ITW. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of ITW on both counts. The court of appeals reversed …

The Legality Of Extraterritorial Application Of Competition Law And The Need To Adopt A Unified Approach, Thanh Phan

Louisiana Law Review

The article focuses on the international law and the foundation of the extraterritorial application of competition law (EACL) and proposes a unified approach for all countries to use when considering the extraterritorial application of competition law.

The Promise And Peril Of Collective Listening, Whitney Broussard

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

The Customer Is Not Always Right: Balancing Worker And Customer Welfare In Antitrust Law, Clayton J. Masterman

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Note analyzes how courts' leniency affects a particular category of anticompetitive buyer conduct: agreements between employers that restrict competition in labor markets. If, as courts and commentators generally agree, the goal of antitrust law is to promote the welfare of consumers, how should courts balance the welfare of workers and customers under antitrust analysis? Arguably, worker welfare should be included in consumer welfare. If so, anticompetitive agreements between employers benefit one subset of consumers (customers), while hurting another subset (workers). The persistent procustomer and antiworker effect of such complicates a court's choice to find conduct per se unreasonable or …

Writing Better Jury Instructions: Antitrust As An Example, Joshua P. Davis, Shannon Wheatman, Cristen Stephansky

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Patent Privateers And Antitrust Fears, Matthew Sipe

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Patent trolls are categorically demonized as threatening American innovation and industry. But whether they are a threat that antitrust law is equipped to deal with is a complex question that depends on the particular type of patent troll and activities they engage in. This Article looks specifically at privateer patent trolls: entities that acquire their patents from operating entities and assert them against other industry members. In the particular context of privateering, antitrust law is almost certainly not the proper legal solution. Privateering does raise significant issues: circumventing litigation constraints, evading licensing obligations, and raising the cost and frequency of …

Do Not Pass Go And Do Not Collect $200: Nike's Monopoly On Usatf Violates Antitrust Laws And Prevents Athletes From Living At Park Place, Jill K. Ingels

Marquette Sports Law Review

No abstract provided.