University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School; University of Pennsylvania - Annenberg School for Communication; University of Pennsylvania - School of Engineering and Applied Science
Date Written: January 25, 2018
Abstract
This brief explains amici’s understanding of the relevant economic analysis. It explains why basic economic principles underlying the analysis of multi-sided markets lead to the conclusion that a plaintiff should be required to demonstrate, at a minimum, that: (1) the allegedly unlawful restraint caused anticompetitive effects in the form of actual or probable restricted output market-wide—a showing that logically requires analyzing both sides of a two-sided market; and (2) the defendant had sufficient market power to restrict output in a properly defined market. These two requirements align with sound economics and would also provide clear guidance for courts in applying the rule of reason.
Manne, Geoffrey and Boliek, Babette and Cooper, James C. and Epstein, Richard and Hazlett, Thomas W. and Hurwitz, Justin (Gus) and Klick, Jonathan and Lambert, Thomas Andrew and Lipsky, Abbott B. and Teece, David J. and Wright, Joshua D. and Yoo, Christopher S., Amicus Brief of Antitrust Law & Economics Scholars, Ohio v. American Express (January 25, 2018). University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3384353 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3384353
Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic
FOLLOWERS
328
PAPERS
5,896
This Journal is curated by:
Shana Wallace at Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Feedback
Feedback to SSRN
If you need immediate assistance, call 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 212 448 2500 outside of the United States, 8:30AM to 6:00PM U.S. Eastern, Monday - Friday.