Home » Articles » Did Trinko Really Kill Antitrust Price Squeeze Claims? A Critical Approach to the Linkline Decision Through a Comparison of E.U. and U.S. Case Law

Did Trinko Really Kill Antitrust Price Squeeze Claims? A Critical Approach to the Linkline Decision Through a Comparison of E.U. and U.S. Case Law

PDF · Caroline Cavaleri Rudaz · Jul-5-2012 · 43 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L. L. 1077 (2010)

This Article presents a critical analysis of the Linkline case that refuses to recognize price squeeze claims as antitrust claims under § 2 of the Sherman Act.  It argues that Linkline gives a distorted reading of Trinko without giving proper attention to the application of § 2 of the Sherman Act.  The Linkline decision takes a dogmatic position and thus, while refuting the Alcoa decision, appears to be a missed opportunity to more precisely define price squeezing.

This Article offers a comparison between the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision and the recent European decisions delivered in broadband access cases that are pointing in a completely different direction.  As U.S. antitrust law and E.U. competition law converge by seeking to protect consumer welfare through the application of law based on sound economic analysis, price squeezing illustrates the most acute difference between the U.S and E.U.: the fear of introducing regulatory principles through antitrust law in the U.S. as opposed to a more tolerant perception of state intervention in the E.U.




One Response to “Did Trinko Really Kill Antitrust Price Squeeze Claims? A Critical Approach to the Linkline Decision Through a Comparison of E.U. and U.S. Case Law”

  1. Remarkable! Its genuinely amazing piece of writing, I have got much clear idea regarding from this
    post.

    posted on February 10th, 2014 at 8:16 am

Leave a Reply

ExpressO Top 10 Law Review

ANNOUNCEMENTS

We are pleased to announce the 2013-2014 VJTL New Members

Coming up:

The Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law hosted a symposium called “The Role of Non-State Actors in International Law” at Vanderbilt University Law School in February 2013.

The October issue of the Journal will showcase articles by distinguished symposium guests including:

  • Mr. Ian Smillie, “Blood Diamonds and Non-State Actors”
  • Professor Jean d’Aspremont, “Cognitive Conflicts and the Making of International Law from Empirical Concord to Conceptual Discord in Legal Scholarship”
  • Professor Peter J. Spiro, “Constraining Global Corporate Power: A Very Short Introduction”
  • Professor Suzanne Katzenstein
  • Professor Peter Margulies
  • Professor Harlan G. Cohen

 

Explore Other Vanderbilt Law Resources