Price Fixing Antitrust Law: Landmark Publications that Shaped Competition Policy

Price fixing, the illegal practice of two or more competitors agreeing to set prices or restrict output, is a serious antitrust violation that can harm consumers and stifle competition. Over the years, there have been several landmark publications that have shaped the legal landscape of price fixing antitrust law. These publications have clarified the legal standards for prosecuting price-fixing cases, provided guidance to businesses on how to comply with antitrust laws, and helped to shape public understanding of the importance of competition.

1. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States (1911)

This Supreme Court case was a landmark decision in antitrust law. The Court held that the Standard Oil Company's acquisition of its competitors had created a monopoly that violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Court also established a rule of reason, which stated that not all monopolies are illegal, but only those that unreasonably restrain trade.

2. United States v. Trenton Potteries Co. (1927)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that price fixing agreements between competitors are illegal per se, regardless of whether they have any actual anticompetitive effects. This decision established the "antitrust per se" rule, which applies to a small number of antitrust offenses that are so inherently anticompetitive that they are considered illegal without the need for a detailed analysis of their actual effects.

Price Fixing (Antitrust Law)

by LandMark Publications

5 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	4914 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	5324 pages
Lending	:	Enabled

FREE

3. American Tobacco Co. v. United States (1946)

This case further clarified the antitrust per se rule. The Supreme Court held that an agreement between competitors to fix prices is illegal per se, even if the competitors are located in different geographical markets. The Court also held that price fixing agreements can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as identical pricing or parallel conduct.

4. United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. (1940)

This case established the "conscious parallelism" doctrine. The Supreme Court held that when competitors engage in parallel conduct that suggests that they are following a common plan, it is permissible to infer that there is an agreement to fix prices. The conscious parallelism doctrine has been used in numerous price-fixing cases since then.

5. Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (1993)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that predatory pricing, or selling below cost in Free Download to drive competitors out of business, can be illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Court established a three-part test for determining whether predatory pricing is illegal: (1) the predator must have the intent to drive a competitor out of business; (2) the predator must have the market power to do so; and (3) the predator must actually drive the competitor out of business.

6. United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2000)

This case involved Microsoft's anticompetitive practices in the market for operating systems. The Court held that Microsoft's conduct was illegal under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits monopolization and attempted monopolization. The Court found that Microsoft had engaged in a pattern of anticompetitive conduct, including tying its operating system to other products, making it difficult for consumers to switch to other operating systems, and acquiring competitors in Free Download to maintain its monopoly.

7. State of New York v. Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc. (2016)

This case involved a lawsuit by the state of New York alleging that Visa and MasterCard had engaged in anticompetitive practices in the market for credit card interchange fees. The lawsuit alleged that Visa and MasterCard had fixed interchange fees at supracompetitive levels, which resulted in higher costs for merchants and consumers. The case was settled in 2017 with Visa and MasterCard agreeing to pay $7.25 billion in damages.

These are just a few of the many landmark publications that have shaped the legal landscape of price fixing antitrust law. These publications have helped to define the legal standards for prosecuting price-fixing cases, provided guidance to businesses on how to comply with antitrust laws, and helped to shape public understanding of the importance of competition.

Price fixing and other forms of anticompetitive conduct are serious offenses that can harm consumers and stifle competition. It is important to be aware of the antitrust laws and to comply with them in Free Download to avoid costly penalties. If you have any questions about price fixing or antitrust law, you should consult with an experienced antitrust lawyer.

Price Fixing (Antitrust Law)

by LandMark Publications

5 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	4914 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	5324 pages
Lending	:	Enabled

FREE