Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Predatory pricing
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===United States=== Predatory pricing practices may result in [[antitrust]] claims of [[monopoly|monopolization]] or attempts to monopolize. Businesses with dominant or substantial [[market share]]s are more susceptible to antitrust claims. However, as antitrust laws are ultimately intended to benefit consumers, and discounting results in at least short-term net benefit to consumers, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] has set high hurdles to antitrust claims based on predatory pricing theory. The Court requires plaintiffs to show a likelihood that the pricing practices affect not only rivals, but also competition in the market as a whole in order to establish there is a substantial probability of success in monopolization.<ref>{{citation|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=509&invol=209|volume=209|title=Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 113 S. Ct. 2578, 2589|year=1993|access-date=2006-01-31|archive-date=2012-10-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121018114313/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=509&invol=209|url-status=live}}</ref> If there is a likelihood that market entrants will prevent the predator from recouping its investment through supra-competitive pricing, then there is no probability of success and the antitrust claim would fail. Additionally, the Court established that for prices to be predatory, they must be below the seller's cost. The US Department of Justice, however, argues that modern economic theory based on strategic analysis supports predatory pricing as a real problem, and claims that the courts are out of date and too skeptical.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.justice.gov/atr/predatory-pricing-strategic-theory-and-legal-policy | title = Predatory Pricing: Strategic Theory and Legal Policy | date = 25 June 2015 | publisher = Department of Justice | access-date = 7 October 2017 | archive-date = 7 October 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20171007120059/https://www.justice.gov/atr/predatory-pricing-strategic-theory-and-legal-policy | url-status = live }}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)