Pozovite nas: +381 11 316 07 24

Prvomajska 8n, Zemun Na mapi

About us

Antitrust Laws Us

By the mid-1990s, a general bipartisan consensus had emerged on antitrust enforcement at the federal level, putting consumer welfare first, but ready to consider new theories of economic harm and test those theories against specific research facts. While Democratic governments may have seemed a little more aggressive in the discussion of mergers and the enforcement of mergers and non-mergers (and may have paid a little more attention to new theories of competitive harm), directives and statements from authorities in the United States and around the world have reflected on antitrust policy based on consumer welfare. over time, a high degree of political consensus. This consensus was led by economists, all of whom shared essentially the same premises in assessing behavior (although they sometimes diverged in applying these premises to some cases), and it largely persisted until the end of the Obama administration. Theoretically, what is hotly contested, predatory pricing occurs when large companies with huge cash reserves and large lines of credit stifle competition by selling their products and services at a loss for a period of time to push their smaller competitors out of business. Without competition, they are then free to consolidate their control over the industry and demand the prices they want. At this point, there is also little incentive to invest in other technological research, as there are no more competitors to gain an advantage. High barriers to entry, such as significant initial investments, in particular the above-mentioned sunk costs, infrastructure requirements and exclusive agreements with distributors, customers and wholesalers, ensure that it will be difficult for new competitors to enter the market and that, if so, the Trust has sufficient notice and sufficient time to buy the competitor. or engage in your own research and return to predatory prices long enough to force the competitor to cease operations. Critics argue that empirical evidence shows that “predatory pricing” does not work in practice and is better defeated by a truly free market than by antitrust laws (see Critique of Predatory Price Theory). Before addressing the practical aspects of antitrust enforcement, the evolution of antitrust enforcement in the United States, and recent controversies that have challenged the relevance of contemporary antitrust policy, I will begin with a brief overview of the most important federal antitrust laws. The antitrust environment of the `70s was dominated by the U.S.

v. IBM case, which was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1969. IBM dominated the computer market at the time through alleged software and hardware bundles, as well as sales sabotage and false product ads. It was one of the largest and longest antitrust cases the DoJ had filed against a company. In 1982, the Reagan administration dismissed the case, and the cost and wasted resources were heavily criticized. However, contemporary economists argue that the legal pressure on IBM during this period allowed the development of an independent software and PC industry of great importance to the national economy. [11] Although the courts have never precisely defined the standard of consumer protection, leading commentators consider it to be oriented towards behaviour that tends to maximize production (taking into account quantity, quality and innovation) in a manner consistent with sustainable competition. Modern antitrust law condemns business behavior that is not “substantially competitive” (aggressive behavior that harms rivals without plausibly benefiting consumers or improving a company`s efficiency) as illegal “exclusionary behavior” that undermines consumer welfare. However, antitrust law does not require companies to demonstrate that their practices ensure the highest possible level of consumer well-being. On the contrary, today`s antitrust law generally gives companies considerable leeway to design their business agreements as they see fit, in order to make a profit, provided that they themselves avoid illegal and other exclusionary behavior. How does the FTC and the DOJ`s dual antitrust enforcement work? In some respects, the authorities of the two agencies overlap, but in practice the two agencies complement each other.

Over the years, agencies have developed know-how in certain sectors or markets. For example, the FTC devotes most of its resources to segments of the economy where consumer spending is high: healthcare, pharmaceuticals, professional services, food, energy, and some high-tech industries such as computer technology and Internet services. Before an investigation is opened, the authorities consult each other in order to avoid duplication. In this guidance note, the term “agency” refers to either the FTC or the DOJ, depending on what the antitrust investigation conducts. Antitrust laws, crucial but often misunderstood, aim to promote competition and protect consumers. .