Why Antitrust Damage Levels Should Be Raised

17 Pages Posted: 10 Apr 2008 Last revised: 17 Nov 2008

See all articles by Robert H. Lande

Robert H. Lande

University of Baltimore - School of Law

Abstract

The conventional wisdom is that current antitrust damage levels are too high, lead to overdeterrence, and should be cut back. Although most agree that threefold damages are fine for cartels, the combination of treble damages to direct purchasers and another treble damages to indirect purchasers typically is denounced as duplicative, a mess, or the equivalent of the use of cluster bombs on defendants.

This article, however, demonstrates the opposite. It shows that, if the current antitrust damage levels are examined carefully, they are the equivalent of approximately single damages, not treble damages. Moreover, defendants' theoretical nightmare scenarios of sixfold damages have never occurred in the real world. Yet, antitrust damages should be significantly higher than single damages to deter antitrust violations optimally. For these reasons, antitrust damage levels should be raised significantly. Prejudgment interest would be a good way to do this.

Keywords: antitrust, damages, deterrence, compensation, treble damages, private enforcement, antitrust damages

JEL Classification: K21, L40

Suggested Citation

Lande, Robert H., Why Antitrust Damage Levels Should Be Raised. Loyola Consumer Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2004, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1118902

Robert H. Lande (Contact Author)

University of Baltimore - School of Law ( email )

1420 N. Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
205
Abstract Views
1,361
Rank
268,682
PlumX Metrics