Abstract
A decade ago, Leegin overruled Dr. Miles and subjected RPM to rule-of-reason treatment, under which the potential for anticompetitive conduct should be analyzed (rather than automatically assumed to be present). In its Leegin decision, the Supreme Court identified four ways in which RPM could be used to retard competition and consequently reduce consumer welfare: The first two involve the well-known concerns that RPM could be used to support either a manufacturer cartel or a dealer cartel; the last two involve unilateral conduct designed to foreclose entry or hinder smaller rivals. In this paper, we analyze these potentially harmful uses of RPM. We conclude that RPM does not pose a substantial anticompetitive threat.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
