Showing results for: “loyalty discounts”
Highlights from Josh Wright’s Interview in The Antitrust Source
Anyone interested in antitrust enforcement policy (and what TOTM reader isn’t?) should read FTC Commissioner Josh Wright’s interview in the latest issue of The Antitrust Source. The extensive (22 page!) interview covers a number of topics and demonstrates the positive influence Commissioner Wright is having on antitrust enforcement and competition policy in general. Commissioner Wright’s ... Highlights from Josh Wright’s Interview in The Antitrust Source
CONDITIONAL PRICING PRACTICES AND THE LIMITS OF ANTITRUST
The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) June 23 Workshop on Conditional Pricing Practices featured a broad airing of views on loyalty discounts and bundled pricing, popular vertical business practices that recently have caused much ink to be spilled by the antitrust commentariat. In addition to predictable academic analyses featuring alternative theoretical anticompetitive effects stories, the Workshop ... CONDITIONAL PRICING PRACTICES AND THE LIMITS OF ANTITRUST
McWane: Why Have An Administrative Law Judge?
Two modest offices on the first floor of the FTC building are occupied by the FTC Administrative Law Judge and his staff. Of all of the agencies with an ALJ, the FTC’s operation must be the smallest. The ALJ handles only a handful of trials each year. In the past, the FTC ALJ operation has ... McWane: Why Have An Administrative Law Judge?
Commissioner Wright’s Call for Section 5 Guidance Getting Attention on Capitol Hill
Late this summer, TOTM hosted a blog symposium on potential guidelines for the Federal Trade Commission’s exercise of its “unfair methods of competition” authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act. Commissioner Josh Wright inspired the symposium by proposing a set of enforcement guidelines for the Commission. Shortly thereafter, Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen proposed her own guidelines, which were largely consistent with ... Commissioner Wright’s Call for Section 5 Guidance Getting Attention on Capitol Hill
My New Paper on Defining Exclusionary Conduct
In our recent blog symposium on Section 5 of the FTC Act, Latham & Watkins partner Tad Lipsky exposed one of antitrust’s dark little secrets: Nobody really knows what Sherman Act Section 2 forbids. The provision bans monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracies to monopolize, and courts have articulated formal elements for each claim. But the ... My New Paper on Defining Exclusionary Conduct
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
