The Rule of Reason Re-Examined
Edward D. Cavanagh
St. John's University - School of Law
February 1, 2012
Business Lawyer , Vol. 67, p. 435, February 2012
St. John's Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12-0012
This article analyzes the application of the Rule of Reason as articulated by Justice Brandeis in Chicago Board of Trade v. United States to alleged restraints of trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. It argues that the Brandeis formulation, which requires courts to consider a broad range of economic factors and then weigh procompetitive benefits against anticompetitive effects, has proven unwieldy in the hands of trial judges. Because the Brandeis formulation provides little guidance as to how these factors should be weighed, courts have struggled to develop clear, predictable, and consistent standards under section 1. This article considers several alternatives to the Brandeis formulation and recommends that courts can revitalize the Rule of Reason by using the highly structured approach of the D.C. Circuit in the Three Tenors case to develop antitrust rules that are clear, predictable, and administrable.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 37Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: September 15, 2012
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.297 seconds