Showing results for: “loyalty discounts”
Final Reply to Steve Salop
Dan’s final post responding to Steve’s latest post. Other posts in the series: Dan, Steve, Dan, Steve, Dan, and Thom. It seems that it’s time to wind down and that a further tit-for-tat might not be productive, so I’ll close with a final comment on the first point that Steve makes—one that may undergird much of our disagreement. Steve asserts that “the $71 ... Final Reply to Steve Salop
Dan, Come Over to the Rule of Reason
Steve’s next, perhaps final, installment, responding to Dan’s latest post on the appropriate liability rule for loyalty discounts. Other posts in the series: Steve, Dan, Steve, Dan, and Thom. My invitation comes with several hopefully final observations. (1) Dan says, “There’s neither input foreclose nor output foreclosure if a rival can neutralize a loyalty discount without pricing unprofitably.” My examples showed several reasons ... Dan, Come Over to the Rule of Reason
A Further Reply to Steve Salop
Dan’s next installment, responding to Steve’s latest post responding to Dan’s latest post on the appropriate liability rule for loyalty discounts. Other posts in the series: Steve, Dan, and Thom. I’m happy to keep going back in forth with Steve until we wear out our welcome at TOTM, or simply wear out. [Keep ’em coming! – ed.] (1) There’s neither input foreclose ... A Further Reply to Steve Salop
Crane is not Right: A Response to Dan Crane on Loyalty Discounts
Guest post by Steve Salop responding to Dan’s latest post on the appropriate liability rule for loyalty discounts. Other posts in the series: Steve, Dan, and Thom. (1) Dan says that price-cost test should apply to “customer foreclosure” allegations. One of my key points was that many loyalty discount claims involve “input foreclosure” or “raising rivals’ costs” effects, not plain-vanilla ... Crane is not Right: A Response to Dan Crane on Loyalty Discounts
Wright is Right, and Wright is Wrong: A Response to Steve Salop on Loyalty Discounts
Guest post by Dan Crane, responding to Steve’s post responding to Dan’s earlier post and Thom’s post on the appropriate liability rule for loyalty discounts. Something that Thom and I both said in our earlier posts needs to be repeated at the outset: I don’t know of anyone who disagrees with Steve and Josh that raising rivals’ costs (“RRC”) and ... Wright is Right, and Wright is Wrong: A Response to Steve Salop on Loyalty Discounts
Wright is Right and Price-Cost Safe Harbors are Wrong: The Raising Rivals’ Cost Paradigm, Loyalty Discounts and Exclusive Dealing
Guest post by Steve Salop, responding to Dan’s post and Thom’s post on the appropriate liability rule for loyalty discounts. I want to clarify some of the key issues in Commissioner Wright’s analysis of Exclusive Dealing and Loyalty Discounts as part of the raising rivals’ costs (“RRC”) paradigm. I never thought that I would have to defend Wright against ... Wright is Right and Price-Cost Safe Harbors are Wrong: The Raising Rivals’ Cost Paradigm, Loyalty Discounts and Exclusive Dealing
Dan Crane on Commissioner Wright’s Rejection of a Price-Cost Test for Loyalty Discounts
Guest post by Michigan Law’s Dan Crane. (See also Thom’s post taking issue with FTC Commissioner Josh Wright’s recent remarks on the appropriate liability rule for loyalty discounts). A number of people on both sides of the ideological spectrum were surprised by FTC Commissioner Josh Wright’s recent speech advocating that the FTC reject the use of price-cost ... Dan Crane on Commissioner Wright’s Rejection of a Price-Cost Test for Loyalty Discounts
Should There Be a Safe Harbor for Above-Cost Loyalty Discounts? Why I Believe Wright’s Wrong.
It’s not often that I disagree with my friend and co-author, FTC Commissioner Josh Wright, on an antitrust matter. But when it comes to the proper legal treatment of loyalty discounts, the Commish and I just don’t see eye to eye. In a speech this past Monday evening, Commissioner Wright rejected the view that there should ... Should There Be a Safe Harbor for Above-Cost Loyalty Discounts? Why I Believe Wright’s Wrong.
Behavioral Merger Remedies and the Hippocratic Principle
Last Thursday, the FTC settled a challenge to a company’s acquisitions of two key rivals. The two acquisitions, each of which failed to meet the threshold for required reporting under Hart Scott Rodino, occurred in 2005 and 2008. Because the acquired companies have been fully integrated into the acquirer and all distinct operations have been ... Behavioral Merger Remedies and the Hippocratic Principle
Hey Hey! Ho Ho! Partial De Facto Exclusive Dealing Claims Have Got to Go!
Today, a group of eighteen scholars, of which I am one, filed an amicus brief encouraging the Supreme Court to review a Court of Appeals decision involving loyalty rebates. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently upheld an antitrust judgment based on a defendant’s loyalty rebates even though the rebates resulted in above-cost prices for the defendant’s products ... Hey Hey! Ho Ho! Partial De Facto Exclusive Dealing Claims Have Got to Go!
Have Elhauge and Wickelgren Undermined the Rule of Per Se Legality for Above-Cost Loyalty Discounts?
Einer Elhauge and Abraham Wickelgren, of Harvard and the University of Texas, respectively, have recently posted to SSRN a pair of provocative papers on loyalty discounts (price cuts conditioned on the buyer’s purchasing some amount, usually a percentage of its requirements, from the seller). Elhauge and Wickelgren take aim at the assertion by myself and ... Have Elhauge and Wickelgren Undermined the Rule of Per Se Legality for Above-Cost Loyalty Discounts?
Summary Judgment Granted in Mayer Laboratories v. Church & Dwight
Judge Edward Chen in the Northern District of California granted Church & Dwight’s motion for summary judgment as to Mayer Laboratories antitrust claims involving Church & Dwight’s shelf space agreements with retailers in the condom market. Church & Dwight is the manufacturer of Trojan brand condoms. Specifically, Mayer argued that Church & Dwight’s shelf space ... Summary Judgment Granted in Mayer Laboratories v. Church & Dwight
