Editing Predatory pricing (section)

====Rule of reason test====
Section 1 of the ''Sherman Act Antitrust Act of 1890'' prohibits '''every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.''{{'}} However, Courts have adopted the rule of reason test to analyze the effects of a restraint of trade on competition. Recent case law suggests that there is a four-step rule of reason test.<ref>Carrier, MA 2019, 'The Four-Step Rule of Reason,' ''Antitrust'', vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 50-51, viewed 2 May 2022, < https://www.antitrustinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ANTITRUST-4-step-RoR.pdf {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220417034822/https://www.antitrustinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ANTITRUST-4-step-RoR.pdf |date=2022-04-17 }}></ref> First, the plaintiff must demonstrate an "anti-competitive effect". Second, the defendant must show a "legitimate procompetitive justification". Third, the plaintiff must highlight that the restraint is not "reasonably necessary" to achieve the defendant's objectives or that there are "less restrictive alternatives". Fourth, the Court will balance the restraint of trade's "anti-competitive effects with its pro-competitive justifications."<ref>Carrier, MA 2019, 'The Four-Step Rule of Reason,' ''Antitrust'', vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 50-51, viewed 2 May 2022, < https://www.antitrustinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ANTITRUST-4-step-RoR.pdf {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220417034822/https://www.antitrustinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ANTITRUST-4-step-RoR.pdf |date=2022-04-17 }}>.</ref> Failure to satisfy any of these elements will defeat the anti-trust violation claim.