Abstract
Under the “essential facilities” doctrine, dominant firms may have a duty to deal with competitors. A principal objection to imposing a duty to deal is uncertainty as to whether a firm can recoup its investments in the facility that the competitor seeks access to. This article discusses the role of investments in essential facility cases. The purpose of this article is twofold. First, it observes that many “essential facility” cases seem to originate from allocation of rights rather than from anticompetitive conduct. Second, it proposes that courts attribute a more significant role to the analysis of investments underlying these facilities. It is expected that greater emphasis on the investments at stake can limit the chilling effects caused by mandatory sharing. This article has been shortlisted for the 3rd Young Writer’s Competition Award.
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.
