Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Consumer Law Blogs -> 43(B)log
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Consumer Law
: 43(B)logReading list: when a monopolist deceives
By Rebecca Tushnet
ADVERTISEMENTS
Maurice E. Stucke, When a Monopolist Deceives, 76 Antitrust Law Journal 823 (2010).Abstract:
This essay uses one context - a monopolist?s deceptive advertising or product disparagement - to illustrate how competition authorities and courts should evaluate a monopolist?s deception under the federal antitrust laws. Competition authorities should target a monopolist?s anticompetitive deception, which courts should treat as a prima facie violation of the Sherman Act without requiring a full-blown rule of reason analysis or an arbitrary, multi-factor standard.
Full post as published by 43(B)log on July 22, 2010 (boomark / email).
Related Law Articles
DC Madame Phone List
Telephone Records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey's Escort Service (Pamela Martin and Associates)
Lawsuits and Settlements
$5.4 Million Quebec Breast Cancer Wait List Class Action Settlement Approved
$5.4 Million Quebec Breast Cancer Class Action Settlement Approved
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

Stucke on Monopolist's Deception
MAURICE STUCKEY: When A Monopolist Deceives.
Beyond Critical Loss: Properly Applying the Hypothetical Monopolist Test
A Practical Guide to the Hypothetical Monopolist Test for Market Definition
The Monopolist as Victim: Constitutional Law in Antitrust - Part I
Implementing the Hypothetical Monopolist SSNIP Test with Multi-Product Firms









