Skip to main content

Refusals To Deal : Steven C. Salop Statement

This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.


Slide 1

Refusals to Deal

Steven C. Salop
Georgetown University Law Center
CRA International

FTC/DO J Hearings on Exclusionary Conduct
July 18, 2006

Slide 2

General Exclusion Standards

  • Alternative Standards
    • Consumer Welfare Effect
    • Profit Sacrifice/No Economic Sense
  • Benefits of CWE
    • Focused on goal of antitrust
    • Flexible - "an enquiry meet for the case"
    • Implies tailored structured inquiry for each type of exclusionary conduct
    • Unifies Section 1 and Section 2 analysis under the rule of reason
  • Misperceptions about CWE standard
    • Does not require open-ended balancing - permits different specific legal tests in different exclusion settings
    • Does not lead to false positives
  • Sacrifice/NES standard causes false negatives and false positives

Slide 3

Innovation Incentives

  • Innovation incentives are a claimed rationale for restricting Section 2
  • But, basis and significance of concern are unclear
    • Firms have strong incentives to innovate in competitive markets
    • Market innovation incentives improved by competition
    • Monopolists have weaker incentives than competitors
    • Exclusionary conduct reduces innovation incentives of entrants and rivals, by reducing or eliminating their market prospects
    • No evidence of weakened innovation from fear of antitrust
  • Thus, justification for restricting Section 2 is weak

Slide 4

Comparing Standards for Refusals to Deal: Summary

  • Alternative Standards
    • Consumer Welfare Effect
    • Profit-Sacrifice/No Economic Sense
    • Per Se Legality
  • CWE and Sacrifice/NES have similarities
    • Both require a price benchmark
    • But, Sacrifice/NES standard may not require proof
      • of anticompetitive effects (causes false positives)
  • Per se legality leads to reduced competition and significant false negatives
    • Limits of per se rule also are unclear

Slide 5

Proposed Rule under CWE Standard: What Plaintiff Must Prove

  • Monopoly power
    • Monopoly power in input market
    • Actual or likely monopoly power in output market
  • Plaintiff has made a genuine offer to buy at or above the appropriate "non-exclusion benchmark" price, as defined below; whereas defendant has failed to accept such an offer or made a genuine offer to sell at or below that benchmark price, ("compensation" test)
  • Refusal to deal would cause prices to be raised or maintained at supra-competitive level. ("effects test")
    • Output market
    • Input market
    • Another market where the entrant is an actual or potential competitor of defendant

Slide 6

Non-Exclusion Benchmark Price

  • Non-exclusion benchmark price: potential alternatives
    • Prior price charged to plaintiff
    • Price charged to other buyers
    • Price that compensates defendant for monopoly profits on output sales lost to plaintiff ("protected-profits" benchmark)
  • Potential adjustments to benchmark
    • If dealing raises defendant's production costs
    • If plaintiff creates reputational free riding
    • If monopoly power attained or maintained illegitimately
  • Burden may shift to defendant to show plaintiff's price offer is below benchmark
    • If non-negotiable ("flat") refusal to deal

Slide 7

"Protected-Profits" Benchmark

  • Properties of benchmark
    • Compensates for lost output market monopoly profits from defendant's customers who switch to entrant
    • But, no compensation for price competition caused by entry by firm with lower costs or superior product for some consumers
  • Derived from ECPR literature
    • Baumol/Ordover/Willig
    • Commentators (e.g., Armstrong/Doyle/Vickers/White)
  • Benchmark input price: W = Cu + D x Md
    • Cu= monopolist's marginal cost of input (in dollars)
    • Md= monopolist's output "gross margin" over costs (in dollars)
    • D = fraction of entrant's output sales diverted from monopolist

Slide 8

Example: Verizon and AT&T

  • Protected-profits benchmark is practical for courts and firms to calculate
  • Assumptions: relevant data
    • Verizon's incremental cost of DSL inputs is $10
    • Verizon earns monopoly margin over costs of $50on retail DSL
    • If Verizon deals with AT&T, 50% of AT&T DSL customers would come from Verizon retail DSL, with rest from cable and dial-up.
      • D = 50%
  • Benchmark input price: W = $35 .
    • If D=1 (100% diversion), then W=$60

Slide 9

Trinko's Cautions

  • No general Sherman Act duty to deal
    • Cf Colgate (no duty "in the absence of any purpose to create or maintain a monopoly")
  • Forced dealing raises red flags
    • Compelling firms to share may lessen
      • investment incentives.
    • Enforced sharing requires courts to act as
      • central planners
    • Compelling negotiation can facilitate collusion.

Slide 10

Investment Incentives Concern: Some Answers

  • Benchmark price compensates defendant for monopoly profits on lost customers.
  • Entrant unlikely to enter input market
    • Defendant's input market monopoly power implies durable entry barriers
    • This also makes leapfrog competition by entrant less likely
  • Competitive market will increase defendant's innovation incentives
    • Monopolists have weaker innovation incentives
  • Ability to enter output market will increase entrant's innovation incentives
  • Entrant cannot be called a free-rider on the grounds that it competes with defendant in only one market, rather than entering both markets
    • Kodak ("this understanding of free-riding has no support in our case law")

Slide 11

Courts as Central Planners Concern: Some Answers

  • Courts and agencies routinely compare prices and costs, and use other quantitative economic evidence
    • Eg, Brooke Group, Ortho, Kraft, agency merger analysis
  • Task is not beyond the capabilities of District Court judges
    • Market prices often provide a good benchmark
    • Protected-profits benchmark is not too difficult to evaluate
  • If antitrust withdraws, then alternative may be new public utility regulation
    • Is FOSC the next step?
      • Federal Operating System Commission
    • Rare use of essential facilities doctrine could serves as an intermediate stopping point

Slide 12

Facilitating Collusion Concern: Some Answers

  • Court's caution is very broad. Firms have independent incentives to negotiate, and independent incentives to collude.
    • Would Court's reasoning lead it to prohibit voluntary dealing between competitors because it can lead to collusion?
    • Or, prohibit joint ventures, which can (and sometimes do) serve as forums for collusion?
    • Or prohibit patent settlements, which can (and sometime are) used to strike non-compete agreements or collude on price?
  • Refusals to deal against competitors may hide (or amount to) non-compete agreements:
    • "I will sell to you if you promise not to compete with me."
  • Collusion is less likely when negotiation is forced (and potentially monitored) by a court
  • Incremental effect of forced negotiation on collusion likely insignificant or negative

Slide 13

How Would a Rule of Per Se Legality be Limited?

  • If it is per se legal to refuse to deal with firms that compete with you ...
  • Then why not also per se legal to refuse to deal with firms that...
    • Sell output to your competitors? ("exclusive dealing")
    • Purchase inputs from your competitors? ("exclusive dealing")
    • Buy other products from your competitors? ("tying")
    • Announce their intention to compete with you in some
      • product market? ("non-competition agreement")
    • Charge low prices for their competing products?
      • ("price fixing")

Slide 14

Appendix

The Overarching Antitrust Standard: "Consumer Welfare" vs "Total Welfare"

Slide 15

Economic Welfare Standards

  • True consumer welfare standard
    • Consumer surplus
  • Total welfare standard
    • Total surplus
    • Bork named this "consumer welfare" -- deception or just confusion?
  • Why use the true consumer welfare standard?
    • Does not permit competitor injury to trump consumer benefits
      • But, total welfare standard does allow this trump -- Did Bork know?
    • Consistent with precedent
    • Simpler to evaluate (price and output)
    • Induces efficient conduct
      • Firm can marginally restructure transactions in efficient ways to eliminate consumer harm and raises
        • total welfare in the process
      • Offsets unwillingness of courts/agencies to rigorously apply less restrictive alternative standard or gain
        • full information about potential alternatives, thereby preventing inefficiencies
    • Better supports innovation incentives

Slide 16

Innovation Incentives and Welfare Standards

  • Consumer welfare standard supports greater overall innovation incentives
    • Total welfare standard allows the dominant firm to destroy higher cost rivals that otherwise would innovate, thereby reducing innovation
    • Total welfare standard allows mergers and exclusion that eliminate competition, leading to a dominant firm with less incentive to innovate
    • These harms likely are larger than any marginal efficiency benefits from allowing mergers or exclusionary conduct that modestly reduce costs, while leading to higher prices to consumers
  • Thus, adopting the true consumer welfare standard leads to higher long-run total welfare, as well as higher long-run consumer welfare.
Updated June 25, 2015