Antitrust Counseling

June 3, 2023

Ten Ways to Tell Whether You Have an Antitrust Claim

Law school exams are all about issue spotting. Sure, after you spot the issue, you must describe the elements and apply them correctly. But the important skill is, in fact, issue spotting. In the real world, you can look up a claim’s elements; in fact, you should do that anyway because the law can change (see, e.g., Leegin and resale price maintenance).

And outside of a law-school hypothetical, it usually isn’t that difficult to apply the law to the facts. Of course, what makes antitrust law interesting is that it evolves over time and its application to different circumstances often challenges your thinking. Sometimes, you may even want to ask your favorite economist for some help.

Anyway, if you aren’t an antitrust lawyer, it probably doesn’t make sense for you to advance deep into the learning curve to become an expert in antitrust and competition doctrine. It might be fun, but it is a big commitment to get to where you would need to be, so you should consider devoting your extra time instead to Bitcoin or deadlifting.

But you should learn enough about antitrust so you can spot the issues. This is important because you don’t want your company to violate the antitrust laws, which could lead to jail time, huge damage awards, and major costs and distractions. And as antitrust lawyers, we often counsel from this defensive position.

It is fun, however, to play antitrust from the offensive side of the ball. That is, you can utilize the antitrust laws to help your business. To do that, you need a rudimentary understanding of antitrust issues, so you know when to call us. Bona Law represents both plaintiffs and defendants in antitrust litigation of all sorts.

Continue reading →

February 23, 2023

DOJ Announces New Voluntary Self-Disclosure Program Applicable to All Corporate Crimes

by Bona Law PC

Authors: Jon Cieslak and Molly Donovan

For the first time, there is a nationwide Voluntary Self-Disclosure Program applicable to any corporate misconduct prosecutable by a US Attorney. As detailed below, companies that make a qualifying Voluntary Self-Disclosure (VSD) are eligible for “resolutions under more favorable terms than if the government had learned of the misconduct through other means” – in other words, a criminal guilty plea could be avoided in exchange for a VSD.

To qualify as a VSD, the disclosure must be:

Voluntary. There must not be a pre-existing obligation to disclose pursuant to regulation, contract or prior DOJ resolution (e.g., a non-prosecution agreement).

Prompt. The disclosure must be prior to an “imminent threat” of disclosure or investigation; prior to the misconduct being public or otherwise known to the government; within a “reasonably prompt time” after the company becomes aware of the misconduct.

Substantive. The disclosure must include “all relevant facts” known to the company at the time of the disclosure, even if the internal investigation is in a preliminary stage. As new facts become known, they should be reported as the investigation unfolds.

In exchange for a VSD, the Department will not seek a guilty plea so long as:

The company “fully cooperated” with the DOJ. The terms of cooperation, including how long and to what degree cooperation is required, are not specified.

The company “timely and appropriately remediated” the conduct. Remediation includes the payment of “all restitution” to victims.

There are no aggravating factors, i.e., the conduct did not present a grave threat to national health or safety; the conduct was not “deeply pervasive” throughout the company and did not involve “current executive management.” Whether the knowledge of a corporate executive constitutes their “involvement” is not specified.

In the event of an aggravating factor, a guilty plea is not required automatically, but the DOJ will “assess the relevant facts” to determine an “appropriate resolution” on a case-by-case basis.

In the end, where the VSD is deemed satisfactory, the criminal resolution “could include a declination, non-prosecution agreement, or deferred prosecution” in lieu of a guilty plea. In the event the Department does choose to impose a criminal penalty, it “will not impose a criminal penalty that is greater than 50% below the low end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines fine range.”

Finally, if, by the time of the resolution, the company has implemented an “effective compliance program,” the Department will not require the imposition of a monitor. These decisions are to be made on a case-by-case basis in the USAO’s sole discretion.

As a concept and seemingly in practice, the Program shares many similarities with the DOJ Antitrust Division Leniency Policy and Procedures, under which antitrust lawyers have been operating for years, perfecting the art of timely self-disclosure and appropriate cooperation with the Department for companies that choose to self-disclose antitrust felonies. As a result, we as antitrust practitioners could bring unique experience to companies weighing the costs and benefits of participating in the new VSD Program for non-antitrust crimes and, if companies do self-disclose, how to participate and advocate within the Program effectively.

Continue reading →

February 16, 2023

Domestic Companies and Their Execs Plead Guilty to Criminal Price-Fixing

by Bona Law PC

Authors: Jon Cieslak & Molly Donovan

Two individuals and four of their corporate entities pleaded guilty to an antitrust conspiracy to fix the prices of DVDs and Blu-Rays sold on Amazon’s platform during the 2016-2019 time period.

According to the plea agreements, the defendants “engaged in discussions, transmitted across state lines both orally and electronically, with representatives of other sellers of DVDs and Blu-Ray Discs on the Amazon Marketplace. During these discussions, the defendant[s] reached agreements to suppress and eliminate competition for the sale of DVDs and Blue-Ray Discs . . . by fixing prices” paid by consumers throughout the United States. Further details about the operation of the conspiracy are not public.

The total affected commerce done by the six guilty-plea defendants is $2.875 million. The agreed-to fines imposed against the corporate defendants range from $68,000 to $234,000, some payable in installments. Sentencing for the individuals is forthcoming with the plea agreements specifying that the Department of Justice is free to argue for a period of incarceration to be served by each of the individuals at issue.

The action is pending in the District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. It serves as a reminder that the DOJ’s Antitrust Division will not excuse price-fixing by relatively small companies, even if the volume of affected commerce is also relatively small.

Continue reading →

February 6, 2023

2022 Developments in Antitrust and Distribution

by Bona Law PC

Author: Steven Cernak

In the antitrust world in 2022, stories about Big Tech, government enforcement, and merger challenges dominated the headlines. But in putting together the 2023 edition of Antitrust in Distribution and Franchising (available for purchase soon!), I found a number of less-famous opinions that US distributors and their counsel should know. Just like last year at this time, I thought it made sense to share some of the research highlights. Below, I summarize opinions on important topics like Robinson-Patman, vertical price agreements, and locked-in consumers.

Robinson-Patman

Robinson-Patman’s Depression-era prohibition of some price and promotion discrimination has not been enforced by the federal antitrust authorities for decades — although, as we discussed recently, that might change soon. Even as government enforcement disappeared, private enforcement continued — again, as we have discussed before. Courts dealing with those private suits have been stingy, sometimes even hostile, in their interpretations of the law — once again, as we have discussed very recently. Two 2022 opinions continued those trends.

In Dahl Automotive Onalaska Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (588 F.Supp. 3d 929, W.D. Wisc.), the defendant paid its dealers a portion of the MSRP of every vehicle sold so long as the dealer was building, or had built, a dealership exclusive to defendant’s brand. Plaintiffs were several small dealers who claimed the payments were harmful price or promotional allowance discrimination because other, larger, dealers sold more cars and so could recoup the cost of the exclusive dealership construction more quickly.

The court granted defendant’s Robinson Patman Act summary judgement motion. The court found that even if the payments allowed larger dealers to recover their construction costs more quickly, “it doesn’t mean that the payments result in price discrimination” because the promised payments merely allowed the dealers to recoup their cost of construction already incurred. Therefore, plaintiffs’ Section 2(a) claim failed. The court also found that the payments were not for “promotional allowances” because the dealership building did not resemble “advertising-related perks.” The court agreed with prior courts that had “concluded that buildings where sales occurred were not promotional facilities.” Therefore, plaintiffs’ Section 2(d) claim failed.

In In re Bookends & Beginnings LLC (2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152596, S.D.N.Y.), plaintiff independent booksellers claimed that major publishers and Amazon violated various laws, including Robinson-Patman Section 2(a), when the publishers granted Amazon a larger discount than it granted plaintiffs. The magistrate judge recommended granting defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim because the Morton Salt inference of competitive injury was inappropriate when the actual discount to Amazon was not known or alleged and there was no other factual support for the complaint’s “conclusory allegation” that the discount was “steep,” “huge,” or “substantial.

Vertical Price Agreements and Retailer Cartels

As we have discussed on the blog, the Leegin case changed the evaluation of vertical price agreements under federal antitrust law from per se illegality to a rule of reason analysis. But while the Court found that such agreements were not always anticompetitive, it did discuss some situations when they might be anticompetitive: For example, when “there is evidence retailers were the impetus for a vertical price restraint, there is a greater likelihood that the restraint facilitates a retailer cartel.” The Court also expressed concern if the restraint were imposed by a manufacturer or retailer with market power.

In Davitashvilli, et. al. v. GrubHub Inc. (2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58974 S.D. N.Y.), purported classes of restaurant customers survived a motion to dismiss their claims that defendants, three of the most popular online platforms for meal deliveries, harmed competition through vertical price agreements. The three defendants require the restaurants whose meals they deliver to charge the same price to customers using defendants’ services as those customers dining in and/or using a competitive delivery service. Plaintiffs likened defendants to the retailers and the restaurants to the manufacturers in Leegin, a comparison the court found “somewhat strained” but “plausible.” Because of the alleged market power of each or all of the defendants, plaintiffs plausibly claimed that the restaurants were forced to work through defendants and raise their prices to the purported classes of diners to recoup some of their additional costs.

Market Power Over Locked-In Customers

In the Supreme Court’s classic tying case, Kodak, the defendant required purchasers of replacement parts for its copiers to also purchase copier service from it. Because defendant often was the only seller of those parts, plaintiffs claimed that defendant had market power sufficient to force customers to accept this tie. Defendant, and the Court’s dissent, argued that defendant could not have power in the aftermarket for parts for its copiers because it had no power in the foremarket for copiers. The Court’s majority responded that defendant could have market power over that subset of its customers who were “locked in” to defendant’s copiers, perhaps because they purchased a copier before defendant adopted its tying policy and because switching to a different copier was costly. As a result, defendant’s summary judgment motion in Kodak was denied.

Continue reading →

January 24, 2023

Antitrust for Kids: Lemonade Redux: Alternatives to Non-Competes In the Face of the FTC’s Proposed Ban

by Bona Law PC

Author: Molly Donovan

You might recall that Max and Margie are next-door neighbors on Lemon Lane.

In a strange turn of events, after Max was found liable for an illegal hub-and-spoke conspiracy against Margie, she let bygones be bygones and hired Max to procure materials for her lemonade stand and to develop new flavors of soft drinks for kids. In that role, Margie and Max agreed that, should Max ever leave Margie’s employ, he wouldn’t compete with Margie by working to sell any kids’ beverages within the city limits for a period of 2 years.

That was all fine until the FTC announced a proposed ban on non-competes, defining “non-compete clause” as a “contractual term between an employer and a worker that prevents the worker from seeking or accepting employment with a person, or operating a business, after the conclusion of the worker’s employment with the employer.” Substance is more important than form—so that if any agreement functions as a “non-compete,” under the FTC’s definition, it would be banned, too, regardless of its label.

Now Margie’s in a bind—does she undo her noncompete with Max? Does she try to language around the proposed ban? Does she wait to see if the ban comes to fruition? Certainly, due to their history, she doesn’t fully trust Max who she has trained at length (including in antitrust compliance), is privy to top-secret recipes, and has developed key relationships with Margie’s lemon suppliers, all in the course of his employment with Margie. Given all that, can’t he be stopped from competing against her in the event he works for another beverage company someday?

Here’s what Margie should know: the FTC has recognized two carve-outs to the potential ban—one for non-solicitation agreements and one for non-disclosures. Such agreements aren’t subject to the proposed ban because they don’t “prevent” workers from competing with their former employers. Instead, a non-solicitation would prevent workers only from soliciting clients or customers with whom the former employer has a business relationship. And non-disclosures would prevent workers only from using proprietary information learned during the course of employment in a new job.

If used as an alternative to a non-compete, these types of clauses should continue to be tailored to particular customers, products and geographic areas that are relevant to the employee at issue and the pertinent procompetitive justifications. An overly broad non-solicitation or non-disclosure could be said to function the same as a non-compete and therefore, become subject to the proposed ban.

Margie could consider other options as well. Perhaps a unilateral policy that deferred compensation or other incentive payments will be clawed back should a worker choose to compete, disclose confidential information in a new position, or disparage Margie in some way. Such a policy is not a contractual agreement because it’s unilateral, and it doesn’t prevent Max from competing—it merely discourages him. (Of course, Margie should be sure a clawback is legit under other laws like ERISA).

Further, if Margie is considering a stick, she might also consider a carrot: a unilateral incentive program for workers that don’t compete within a specified time period or a specific geographic region, etc.

Continue reading →

January 19, 2023

FTC’s Proposed Noncompete Ban Has Already Succeeded

by Bona Law PC

Author: Steven Cernak

Recently, the Federal Trade Commission proposed a nearly complete ban on noncompete provisions in employment agreements. Because it faces the usual lengthy rulemaking process and several expected legal challenges, the proposed rule might not become effective for months, if ever. Through the proposal and attendant publicity, however, the FTC already has drastically changed how such provisions will be used.

Noncompete Basics and the Law Today

Noncompetes prevent workers from leaving an employer to work for other employers, typically competitors. The clauses usually are limited in time and geography. So, for example, a worker is prohibited from working for specific other employers — say, competitors — in a particular geographic area — say, Michigan — for a limited period of time — say, six months after leaving the first employer. Through these clauses, employers hope to better protect their secrets and avoid training a worker for a competitor. For example, a nondisclosure agreement might not adequately prevent use of the first employer’s competitive details that are embedded in the worker’s brain.

Today, such provisions are usually evaluated under state common or statutory law. A handful of states ban them. A few statutorily limit their use to high salary workers. Most try to balance the interests of the employer with those of the worker trying to earn a living in a chosen field. Such provisions are more likely to be upheld if the interests of the employer are legitimate and the restrictions on the worker’s mobility are limited.

FTC Proposed Rule

On January 5, 2023, the FTC proposed a rule that would upend that status quo developed over hundreds of years, declaring nearly all noncompetes as an “unfair method of competition” under the FTC Act, and outlawing nearly all of them. The proposal would allow some noncompetes in the sale of a business and sought comment on partially exempting noncompetes for high salary workers. The proposal would prohibit parties from entering new noncompete provisions and employers from enforcing existing ones. Also, all state laws that were not as restrictive would be pre-empted. The FTC is seeking comment on the proposal through March 10.

Reaction was quick. The proposal at regulations.gov generated thousands of official comments, mostly positive, in the first couple weeks. Negative commentary in the media took several angles. First, some renewed arguments that the FTC does not have the authority to issue rules under its “unfair methods of competition authority.” Others questioned whether the FTC has the authority under recent Supreme Court precedent to answer, without explicit Congressional direction, such a “major question” that has generated thousands of opinions and state laws over hundreds of years.

Finally, even granting that the FTC has the authority for such a rule, some argued that the FTC’s 200+ page notice did not adequately support the wisdom of departing from the typical case-by-case evaluation because other analyses found the overall effect of such noncompetes to be mixed. The FTC will need to consider all the official comments and decide if any tweaks to the proposed rule are appropriates. Unless the rule drastically changes, legal challenges seem certain. Therefore, a ban on nearly all noncompete provisions might not be effective for many months, if ever.

Continue reading →

December 29, 2022

Does an Exclusive-Dealing Agreement Violate the Antitrust Laws?

by Bona Law PC

Author: Jarod Bona

Sometimes parties will enter a contract whereby one agrees to buy (or supply) all of its needs (or product) to the other. For example, a supplier and retailer might agree that only the supplier’s product will be sold in the retailer’s stores. This usually isn’t free as the supplier will offer something—better services, better prices, etc.—to obtain the exclusivity.

If you compete with the party that receives the benefit of the exclusive deal, this sort of contract may aggravate you. After all, you have a great product, you offer a competitive price, and you know that your service is better. Then why is the retailer only buying from your competitor? Shouldn’t you deserve at least a chance? Isn’t that what the antitrust and competition laws are for?

Maybe. But most exclusive-dealing agreements are both pro-competitive and legal under the antitrust laws. That doesn’t mean that you can’t ever bring an antitrust action under exclusive dealing and it doesn’t mean you won’t win. But, percentage-wise, most exclusive-dealing arrangements don’t implicate the antitrust laws and are uncontroversial.

You can read our article about exclusive dealing at the Bona Law website here.

It is important that I deflate your expectations a little bit at the beginning like this because if you are on the outside looking in at an exclusive-dealing agreement, you are probably angry and you may feel helpless. From your perspective, it will certainly seem like an antitrust violation. And your gut feeling about certain conduct is a good first filter about whether you have an antitrust claim. What I am trying to tell you is that with regard to exclusive dealing, your gut may offer some false positives.

Of course, the market is full of exclusive or partial-exclusive dealing agreements and there are relatively few of these that turn into federal antitrust litigation. So if you see an exclusive-dealing claim in federal litigation, it may be one of the rare instances of an exclusive-dealing antitrust violation. Clients and prospective clients often contact Bona Law about exclusive-dealing agreements that are antitrust violations or close to antitrust violations. And we counsel clients on their own exclusive-dealing agreements. But people don’t call us for most varieties of exclusive dealing, which are perfectly legal under the antitrust laws.

So what is an exclusive dealing agreement?

An exclusive dealing agreement occurs when a seller agrees to sell all or most of its output of a product or service exclusively to a particular buyer. It can also happen in the reverse situation: when a buyer agrees to purchase all or most of its requirements from a particular seller. Importantly, although the term used in the doctrine is “exclusive” dealing, the agreement need not be literally exclusive. Courts will often apply exclusive dealing to partial or de facto exclusive dealing agreements, where the contract involves a substantial portion of the other party’s output or requirements. And if there are only two competitors in a market, for example, the exclusive-dealing agreement may take the form of the more powerful of the two competitors telling customers that if they want the powerful company’s products or services, they can’t also purchase from the other competitor.

You should also understand that loyalty-discount agreements and exclusive dealing agreements are, under the law, sometimes indistinguishable.

Continue reading →

November 3, 2022

Antitrust and Blockchain Technology: Group Boycotts, the Bitmain case, and the Ethereum “Merge”

by Bona Law PC

Author: Luis Blanquez

Blockchain is an emerging technology that is already changing the way companies do business. But this doesn’t precludn companies using such nascent technology frot getting caught in the same old anticompetitive practices subject to the antitrust laws.

Before diving into the spectrum of anticompetitive behavior that companies using blockchain technology might get involved, let’s first explain below what distributed ledger technology (“DLT”) and blockchain mean, and what are––at least for now––the different types of blockchains.

In the last section of this article, we also analyze how antitrust group boycotts could apply in a blockchain-setting. And we provide two real life recent examples, the Bitmain case and the Ethereum Merge.

What Is Blockchain Technology?

A “blockchain” is a decentralized, electronic register in which transactions and interactions can be recorded and validated in a verifiable and permanent way. A peer-to-peer network where different users or “nodes” share and validate information in a database or network without the need of a centralized and trusted intermediary.

Records of transactions are stored along with other transactions into blocks of data that are linked to one another in a chain, creating a blockchain, which is a type of distributed ledger technology (“DLT”). Each ledger is tamper-proof and recorded using a consensus verification algorithm that encoded every prior block in the blockchain. Once a block is added to the chain, it is virtually impossible to modify. Any change would require modifying every subsequent block of data on the chain. And because each participant on the blockchain has a unique identification key, other users can instantly verify prior transactions involving that participant.

Bitcoin is the first and most prominent use of blockchain technology and has several features that distinguish it from other blockchains, including actual digital scarcity with a programmed limit of 21 million Bitcoin, forever.

With the help of Web3, blockchain technology has opened the door for companies across many industries––not just cryptocurrencies––to make more efficient, inexpensive, and secure business transactions without the need for a centralized authority. In other words, this a whole new ballgame.

Types of Blockchains: Permissionless v. Permissioned

There are two main types of blockchains.

Permissionless (public) blockchains are publicly available and fully decentralized DLTs, which means there is no central authority involved. They allow everyone to interact and participate in the validation process because they are based on open-source protocols, providing strong security. Validators must all vote to adopt the protocols and code that become the decision-making process of the blockchain. This makes it very difficult to change the behavior of the blockchain. Transactions are also fully transparent, and the nodes involved are almost always anonymous. They have, however, some technical restraints such as (i) less control over privacy (everyone has access to what is going on in the blockchain); and (ii) lower scalability and level of performance than permissioned blockchains––mainly due to the wide scope of their verification process and the amount of information they need to process.

Permissioned (private and consortium) blockchains are made by a smaller pool of validators who are partially decentralized DLTs. Only few known (as opposed to anonymous) and previously identified parties can access the ledger and participate in the validation process. Participants need permission to have a copy of the ledger. Thus, even though there is no central authority involved, a short group of participants validate and share the data relevant to transactions. This means less transparency and a higher risk of collusion and abuse of market power because only few nodes manage the transaction verification and consensus process. On the flip side, privacy is stronger, and they are more scalable and customizable.

This distinction is important to identify and analyze antitrust issues, depending on the type of blockchain involved. But the more the blockchain technology develops, the more those differences have become blurred. A combination of small permissioned blockchains with more open, wider, and decentralized ones (although sometimes still using encrypted transactions) had become a common trend. Interoperability between blockchains and existing network externalities are both expected to keep verification prices down while increasing security. In the end, the final configuration of a blockchain and its software code will depend on the strategy and business model selected, which is something that needs to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, considering the industry and applications involved.

The same applies to the enforcement of antitrust laws to this new technology. That’s why it is essential that companies using blockchain technology have a clear antitrust compliance policy in place and train their key employees accordingly. This is particularly important for those involved with the business strategy of the company and the ones interacting on a regular basis with competitors.

Group Boycotts: The Bitmain case and the Ethereum “Merge”

Private blockchain participants may breach antitrust rules if they exclude competitors from the blockchain without a legitimate business justification. Those who control the blockchain may limit potential competitors access to the chain or may not allow them to conduct transactions therein. This is called a group boycott or a concerted refusal to deal—where multiple entities combine to exclude or otherwise inhibit another party. When that “concerted” boycott involves market power or horizontal control over an essential facility or resource, courts typically always analyze it under the “per se” rule.

Continue reading →

October 20, 2022

If I Were You…I’d Listen to this Podcast about Antitrust and Employment

by Bona Law PC

Author: Molly Donovan

A new episode of the “If I Were You” podcast is here! You can listen to it here. Featuring Bona Law partner Jim Lerner.

This Episode Is About: Antitrust and Employment

Why: There are employment-related antitrust risks that all in-house lawyers should be aware of.

The Five Bullets: In-house lawyers, if I were you, I would educate your business team about the following antitrust hot spots related to employment issues…

Continue reading →

October 4, 2022

Antitrust for Kids: Tricks, Treats and Tying: A Halloween Antitrust Tale

by Bona Law PC

Author: Molly Donovan

Mr. Potter grows the best pumpkins in town. They’re big and round, perfect for carving, and specially treated with a patented spray that keeps Potter pumpkins squirrel-free for weeks. Genius!

Naturally, all the kids in town buy their Halloween pumpkins from Mr. Potter’s farmstand. They’re a bit more expensive than the competition’s pumpkins, but the price tag is worth the pumpkin perfection.

One thing the kids don’t buy at Mr. Potter’s farmstand: apple cider donuts. Everyone knows that Potter skimps on the cinnamon and sugar and the donuts are too dry besides. The other donuts available in town are loads better.

Seeing that his donuts were mostly going to waste, Mr. Potter could have exited the donut business altogether, but he considered himself a better business person than that. So, here’s what Mr. Potter came up with: no donuts, no pumpkins.

Eeek! Scary.

Mr. Potter made a sign reading:

One pumpkin + ½ dozen donuts = $12. Pumpkins NOT sold separately.

Mr. Potter felt this was perfectly fair—he should be rewarded for his ingenuity and his climb to the top of the local pumpkin market even if his customers felt a bit coerced to buy his donuts.

And the kids did feel coerced—having no choice but to swallow the undesirable donuts to get the pumpkins they needed for Halloween carving.

The donut competitors in town were equally mad. Mr. Potter’s scheme caused their sales to drop off dramatically, practically excluding them from the donut market, at least during the month of October.

But it is what it is, right?

Wrong. Fortunately for everyone (except Mr. Potter), Mikey’s mom happened to be an antitrust lawyer. (Mikey, age 4, was a connoisseur of both donuts and pumpkins, and was understandably very upset over the whole thing.)

When Mikey’s mom learned of Mr. Potter’s Halloween trick she said: this is an antitrust violation called tying!

Tying can run afoul of state and federal antitrust laws. Generally, tying is where a seller makes the sale of one product (or service) contingent on the sale of another product (or service)—leaving the consumer with no choice but to buy both. In tying analyses, most courts look at whether the seller has appreciable economic power in the tying product (pumpkins) to unfairly restrain competition in the tied product (donuts).

Here’s what happened next. Mikey’s mom approached Mr. Potter—”Look,” she said. “We want your pumpkins, but not your donuts. Don’t you know this is an antitrust violation? Your donut tie-in is anticompetitive.”

Mr. Potter – clever as he is – responded, “I’m simply making my donuts more competitive. My competition is free to sell pumpkins and donuts together, just as I’m doing. And, I have no real market power for pumpkins anyway when considering the entire county’s many pumpkin patches (beyond just our small town). Plus, my supposed tie has no effects beyond the month of October anyway—no harm, no foul. I’ll take the risk.”

But after giving it more thought, even if he could win a lawsuit, Mr. Potter did not want to invite an expensive and burdensome antitrust litigation. So as most antitrust disputes go, the matter was settled. Potter agreed to the following: Potter pumpkins sold at wholesale to all local donut shops. The town’s best apple cider donuts sold wholesale to Mr. Potter. No ties, no tricks. The result: Halloween treats for all sold at competitive prices, and everyone lived happily ever after. Until the next Halloween anyway…

Continue reading →