Key Antitrust Regulations

Why This Matters

Antitrust law sits at the intersection of business strategy, government regulation, and market economics—making it one of the most heavily tested areas in Legal Aspects of Management. You're being tested on your ability to identify which statute applies to a given scenario, distinguish between per se violations and rule of reason analysis, and understand how different types of restraints (horizontal vs. vertical) receive different legal treatment. These concepts appear repeatedly in multiple-choice questions and form the backbone of case-based essay responses.

Don't fall into the trap of memorizing dates and definitions in isolation. The real exam skill is recognizing patterns: which practices are automatically illegal, which require deeper analysis, and which agency has enforcement authority. When you see a fact pattern involving competitors agreeing on prices, you should immediately think horizontal restraint → per se illegal → Sherman Act. That's the kind of conceptual linking that earns top scores—so as you study each regulation below, focus on what type of conduct it targets and how courts analyze violations.

---

Foundational Statutes: The Legal Framework

These three acts form the statutory backbone of U.S. antitrust law. Understanding their distinct roles—prohibition, specification, and enforcement—is essential for any exam question asking which law applies.

Sherman Antitrust Act

• The grandfather of antitrust law (1890)—this statute established the federal government's authority to regulate anticompetitive behavior
• Section 1 prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies that restrain trade; Section 2 targets monopolization and attempts to monopolize
• Criminal penalties apply, including fines and imprisonment—making it the statute with the sharpest teeth for egregious violations

Clayton Act

• Fills the gaps left by Sherman (1914)—addresses specific practices like price discrimination, exclusive dealing, and anticompetitive mergers
• Introduces the "substantial lessening of competition" standard, allowing regulators to block conduct before it creates a full monopoly
• Section 7 governs mergers and acquisitions, making this the go-to statute for M&A exam questions

Federal Trade Commission Act

• Created the FTC as an enforcement agency (1914)—giving the government investigative and prosecutorial power over antitrust matters
• Section 5 prohibits "unfair methods of competition" and deceptive practices, providing broader authority than Sherman or Clayton alone
• Administrative enforcement power allows the FTC to issue cease-and-desist orders without going through federal court

---

Targeted Amendments: Closing Loopholes

Congress passed these statutes to address specific competitive harms that the original framework didn't adequately cover—price discrimination against small businesses and inadequate merger review.

Robinson-Patman Act

• Amends Clayton Act to target price discrimination (1936)—specifically protects small businesses from being undercut by volume discounts given to large competitors
• Prohibits charging different prices for the same product unless the seller can demonstrate cost justification or meeting competition defenses
• "Secondary line injury" concept tests whether the discrimination harms competition among the seller's customers, not just the seller's own competitors

Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act

• Requires pre-merger notification (1976)—parties must file with both the FTC and DOJ before completing transactions above certain dollar thresholds
• Creates a waiting period (typically 30 days) during which agencies can investigate and challenge problematic deals
• Threshold amounts adjust annually for inflation—exam questions often test whether a hypothetical transaction triggers filing requirements

---

Analytical Frameworks: How Courts Evaluate Conduct

Not all antitrust violations are treated equally. Courts apply different standards depending on how inherently harmful the conduct is—automatic illegality for the worst offenses, contextual analysis for everything else.

Per Se Violations

• Automatic illegality—no justification accepted—courts won't consider business rationales or actual market effects for these practices
• Includes price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation among competitors; these are considered so harmful that proof of the agreement itself is sufficient
• Criminal prosecution is common for per se violations, with potential imprisonment for individuals involved

Rule of Reason Analysis

• Balancing test for ambiguous conduct—courts weigh procompetitive benefits against anticompetitive harms in the specific market context
• Considers market power, intent, and actual effects on competition; defendant can argue the practice increases efficiency or consumer welfare
• Most vertical restraints and many horizontal agreements that don't fit per se categories receive this more flexible treatment

---

Types of Restraints: Horizontal vs. Vertical

The relationship between the parties determines how courts analyze an agreement. Competitors colluding together face harsher treatment than supply chain partners coordinating distribution.

Horizontal Restraints

• Agreements between competitors at the same market level—inherently suspicious because they eliminate the rivalry that benefits consumers
• Price fixing, market allocation, and group boycotts are classic examples; most receive per se treatment
• Even indirect coordination can qualify—sharing pricing information through trade associations has triggered liability

Vertical Restraints

• Agreements between parties at different supply chain levels—manufacturer to distributor, wholesaler to retailer
• Includes exclusive dealing, territorial restrictions, and resale price maintenance—practices that may actually enhance competition by ensuring quality distribution
• Analyzed under rule of reason because they can have legitimate business justifications, like preventing free-riding among dealers

Tying Arrangements

• Seller conditions sale of one product on purchase of another—leveraging market power in the "tying" product to force sales of the "tied" product
• Requires market power in the tying product and a substantial amount of commerce in the tied product market to be illegal
• Hybrid analysis applies—historically per se, but modern courts increasingly use rule of reason to assess actual competitive effects

Exclusive Dealing

• Buyer agrees to purchase only from one seller—can foreclose competitors from accessing distribution channels
• Rule of reason analysis considers the duration of the agreement, market share affected, and barriers to entry for excluded competitors
• Can be procompetitive when it encourages investment in the relationship or ensures product quality

---

Monopolization and Merger Control

These provisions target structural threats to competition—either a single firm dominating a market or a merger that would create dangerous concentration.

Monopolization

• Two-part test: market power plus exclusionary conduct—having a monopoly isn't illegal; acquiring or maintaining it through anticompetitive means is
• Market definition is critical—a firm might have 90% of the "premium smartphone market" but only 30% of "all mobile phones," dramatically affecting liability
• Remedies can include divestiture, requiring the monopolist to break up or sell off business units (think AT&T in 1984)

Mergers and Acquisitions Regulations

• Clayton Act Section 7 plus Hart-Scott-Rodino procedures—together they create a system of pre-merger review and post-merger challenge authority
• Agencies analyze market concentration using the HHI (Herfindahl-Hirschman Index), with higher scores indicating greater competitive concern
• Remedies range from blocking the deal entirely to requiring divestitures of overlapping business units as a condition of approval

---

Specific Prohibited Practices

These are the concrete behaviors that trigger antitrust liability—the fact patterns you'll see on exams.

Price Fixing

• Competitors agree to set, raise, or stabilize prices—the quintessential antitrust violation and a guaranteed per se case
• Direct evidence not required—courts can infer agreement from parallel pricing behavior plus "facilitating factors" like information sharing
• Criminal penalties include substantial fines (up to $$100 million for corporations) and imprisonment (up to 10 years for individuals)

Market Allocation

• Competitors divide territories or customers to avoid competing with each other—equally as harmful as price fixing
• Geographic division (you take the East Coast, I'll take the West) and customer allocation (you sell to hospitals, I'll sell to clinics) both qualify
• Per se illegal because the sole purpose is eliminating competition; no efficiency justification is accepted

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. A manufacturer requires all its retailers to charge at least $$50 for its product. Is this a horizontal or vertical restraint, and which analytical framework applies?

2. Which two statutes work together to create the modern merger review process, and what role does each play?

3. Compare and contrast per se analysis and rule of reason analysis—what types of conduct receive each treatment, and why does the distinction matter for defendants?

4. A large retailer negotiates a 20% discount from a supplier that smaller competitors cannot obtain. Which statute specifically addresses this practice, and what defenses might the seller raise?

5. Two competing hospitals agree to divide their service areas so that each serves different zip codes exclusively. Identify the type of restraint, the applicable statute, and the likely analytical framework a court would apply.