Open Access
Monopoly maintenance law : underdeveloped and misdirected
Loading...
Files
LAW_WP_2025_13.pdf (435.98 KB)
Full-text in Open Access
License
Attribution 4.0 International
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
1725-6739
Issue Date
Type of Publication
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
EUI; LAW; Working Paper; 2025/13
Cite
PETIT, Nicolas, Monopoly maintenance law : underdeveloped and misdirected, EUI, LAW, Working Paper, 2025/13 - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/93880
Abstract
Current application of US antitrust law is at odds with common sense. The US v Google LLC decision provides a prime example. Apple extracts billions of dollars annually from Google, yet antitrust agencies and courts identify Google as the monopolist. The reason for this error lies in the underdeveloped state of the monopoly maintenance doctrine. Following Microsoft, the law allows plaintiffs to charge dominant firms with violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act for conduct responsive to monopoly power exploitation by a trading partner. Section 2 of the law thus supports liability findings against dominant firms that pay exorbitant prices to a monopolist based on the argument that they get a competitive advantage in return. To address this flaw, a market power utilization requirement must be rehabilitated to prevent antitrust law from being systematically misdirected against the wrong firms.