Abstract
A firm violates the antitrust laws; another firm suffers injury. Under what circumstances may the second firm recover treble damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act.' This, in its starkest form, is the problem of defining the scope of liability for antitrust violations,2 and it has commanded the attention of the federal courts in a variety of contexts in recent years. Reasons for the attention are not hard to find. Existing definitions of substantive antitrust liability bring many efficient business arrangements arguably within the prohibition of the antitrust laws.3 Consequently, firms quite rationally employ a rent-seeking antitrust strategy, whose aim is not only to exact treble damages, but to inhibit rivalry and efficient distribution practices.4 At the same time, the complexity, duration, and expense of antitrust litigation
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.
