Abstract
The Supreme Court’s decision in Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc. removed an important tool from competition regulators’ arsenals. Not only did the Court express skepticism about the existence of a price squeeze cause of action, but it also applied the economically mismatched predatory pricing test to price squeeze cases. Unfortunately, the lack of clarity on linkLine’s reach also caused significant confusion in the lower courts. Examining these issues, this article clarifies the distinction between price squeeze and predatory pricing claims and argues that the second step of the predatory pricing test, probability of recoupment, is inappropriate for price squeeze cases and should either be dropped from the test or replaced with a presumption of recoupment.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
