Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In neo-classical economics, price fixing is inefficient. The anti-competitive agreement by producers to fix prices above the market price transfers some of the consumer surplus to those producers and also results in a deadweight loss. International price fixing by private entities can be prosecuted under the antitrust laws of many countries.
Dumping, also known as predatory pricing, is a commercial strategy for which a company sells a product at an aggressively low price in a competitive market at a loss.A company with large market share and the ability to temporarily sacrifice selling a product or service at below average cost can drive competitors out of the market, [1] after which the company would be free to raise prices for a ...
The rule of reason is a legal doctrine used to interpret the Sherman Antitrust Act, one of the cornerstones of United States antitrust law.While some actions like price-fixing are considered illegal per se, other actions, such as possession of a monopoly, must be analyzed under the rule of reason and are only considered illegal when their effect is to unreasonably restrain trade.
Predatory pricing is a commercial pricing strategy which involves the use of large scale undercutting to eliminate competition. This is where an industry dominant firm with sizable market power will deliberately reduce the prices of a product or service to loss-making levels to attract all consumers and create a monopoly. [1]
The Robinson–Patman Act (RPA) of 1936 (or Anti-Price Discrimination Act, Pub. L. No. 74-692, 49 Stat. 1526 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 13)) is a United States federal law that prohibits anticompetitive practices by producers, specifically price discrimination.
So, a competition authority investigating A should only consider competitive pressure (or lack thereof) that B puts on A - reverse pressure from A to B is irrelevant. The SSNIP test relies on total losses in sales after a 5% price increase, not just substitutions to a particular competitor's product. Thus it includes sales losses due to ...
In the context of U.S. competition law, the consumer welfare standard (CWS) or consumer welfare principle (CWP) [1] is a legal doctrine used to determine the applicability of antitrust enforcement. Under the consumer welfare standard, a corporate merger is deemed anti-competitive “only when it harms both allocative efficiency and raises the ...
The suit was filed because of price fixing and other allegedly anti-competitive trade practices in the credit card industry. In February 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Margo K. Brodie approved a settlement in the case that amounted to $5.54 billion. [1]