Talk:Rule of reason

Rule of reason and Cassis de Dijon case
Isnt this related to the above mentioned EU case and not this US one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.230.11.132 (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Answer (by anonymous EU lawyer):  Cassis de Dijon is a free movement of goods case, not an antitrust case; in antitrust the European Court has specifically and repeatedly clarified that the rule of reason doctrine is incompatible with EU law (see eg T-11/08, T-112/99, T-49/02, T-491/07, T-208/13, etc), in fact this approach is not used even in the context of the doctrine of necessary anquillary restrictions. The article must be corrected.

Another answer (by an anonymous EU competition lawyer): Cassis de Dijon is indeed unrelated to antitrust. However, to simply conclude that the rule of reason is inapplicable in Europe means ignoring the effects based approach and doctrine pushed by the ECJ over the last few decades (most notably the succession of judgements in the Intel saga and in Budapest Bank for abuse of dominance cases, and Cartes Bancaires & Pronuptia for coordinated conduct cases). The "rule of reason" may not exist under that exact name, but there is a European equivalent that requires a two-step analysis of effects and effectively applies the same logic as the rule of reason to EU competition law cases. Firstly, even in by object infringements (which is in itself an EU equivalent of the per se doctrine) where the defendant can allege, by reference to the economic facts and market context at the time of the events at issue, that its conduct was incapable of resulting in anticompetitive effects (i.e. was unlikely to foreclose rivals), then antitrust enforcers must undertake an analysis of the potential effects to determine whether that capability actually exists – similar to a truncated rule of reason in the US. Secondly, even if the answer to that question is "yes", or if the conduct is inherently capable by object as determined by experience and as reflected in legal precedent (e.g. horizontal price-fixing among rivals, or a dominant firm pricing below average variable costs for a significant proportion of its customers), the defendant can seek to prove an efficiencies justification that weighs the procompetitive benefits of the conduct against the anticompetitive effects on the market. Which is the very definition of the rule of reason. So, while it may not exist under that guise, it's definitely alive and kicking in Europe. I agree with the previous post, though, that the article needs to be corrected: to reflect that the rule of reason's principles do apply in the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.85.24 (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Broken Links
To author or other users please fix these links!!!!--Peace237 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Leegin v. PSKS
I'm far from an antitrust law expert, but doesn't the Supreme Court's decision in Leegin v. PSKS the other day change what this article says about resale price maintenance? Can someone who knows more about this change the article? --Velvet elvis81 16:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rule of reason. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203013615/http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2190&context=lawreview to http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2190&context=lawreview

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

History
The first two paragraphs of the History section appear to be in a bit of a mess at the moment. I am wary of editing it since I know nothing about the subject.

The opening phrase "Upon its development" implies that we are dealing with the reaction to Addyston in 1899, but it quickly becomes apparent that we are actually dealing with Standard Oil in 1911. The text seems to imply that Justice Harlan dissented from the majority opinion in Standard Oil, which he did not. The second paragraph purports to be continuing the discussion of the first (with its opening "Others" presumably answering "some critics"), but it is even more anachronistic, since Robert Bork is one of the commentators it mentions (he was born in 1927). We are told that "much language in Trans-Missouri Freight was dicta", but this is unrevealing since there is no discussion of that case. JBritnell (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)