|
||||
|
||||
Looking at the Monopsony in the MirrorMaurice E. StuckeUniversity of Tennessee College of Law June 27, 2012 Emory Law Journal, Forthcoming University of Tennessee Legal Studies Research Paper No. 191 Abstract: Although still a distant second to monopoly, buyer power and monopsony are hot topics in the antitrust community. Despite the increasing interest in monopsony and buyer power, relatively few cases have actually been brought. Given the relatively few antitrust cases, the legal standards for monopsony claims are less developed than for monopoly claims. In recent years, courts, competition agencies, and scholars in addressing monopsony begin with a simple premise: monopsony is the mirror image of monopoly. But as this Article contends, courts and agencies should be careful when importing monopolization standards for monopsony cases. What works for monopolization claims may not necessarily work for monopsony claims. This Article discusses two key issues: first, how much market share must defendant possess to be a monopsony? If courts and agencies assume that monopsony is the mirror image of monopoly, should the agencies and courts use the same market share thresholds for monopsonization claims as in monopolization claims? Second, should agencies and courts use consumer harm as a threshold screen for monopsony claims?
Number of Pages in PDF File: 50 Keywords: antitrust, sherman act, monopsony, buyer power, consumer welfare, fairness, behavioral economics JEL Classification: K21, L40, L41, D42, J42, L12 Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: June 28, 2012 ; Last revised: September 17, 2012Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo6 in 1.094 seconds