Steven Salop  ‘An Enquiry Meet for the Case: Decision Theory, Presumptions, and Evidentiary Burdens in Formulating Antitrust Legal Standards’

Because legal decisions are adopted with imperfect information, decision-makers must strive to create a decision process and make decisions that are rational in light of the costs and benefits of information-gathering and the inevitable uncertainty under which they decide. Presumptions play an important role in this.  Antitrust law contains a number of important presumptions, which: ‘run the gamut along a continuum from irrebuttable (i.e. conclusive) anticompetitive presumptions to rebuttably anticompetitive to competitively neutral to conclusively procompetitive and finally to irrebuttable procompetitive presumptions. These presumptions are based on the effects inferred from the market conditions’ and most capture the central tendency of the category of conduct to increase or decrease competition and consumer welfare. This paper – which can be found here – seeks to understand, through the lens of economic decision theory, how the appropriate presumption for various categories of conduct should be established, and how rational presumptions and their associated post-rebuttal evidentiary burdens of production and persuasion can be better…

Herbert Hovenkamp ‘Antitrust Balancing’ (2016) NYU J. L. & Bus. 12 369

The basic argument of this paper, which can be found here, is that courts very rarely engage in any balancing even when cases fall under the rule of reason. Most people who are familiar with Hovenkamp’s work will not be particularly surprised by this argument. The interesting claim in this paper is that he thinks that there can be meaningful balancing in merger control – particularly when determining whether merger-induced efficiencies are sufficient to offset upward pricing pressures created by the merger. The paper is structured as follows: A first section looks at balancing under the Sherman Act. It points out that “aside from naked price fixing, market division, and a few boycotts, most agreements among competitors are addressed under the rule of reason”. It then explains (as he has done so many times before) that in practice: “the courts pursue rule of reason analyses through a verbal sequence something like this: first, the plaintiff has the burden to show…

Carl Shapiro and Herbert Hovenkamp ‘Horizontal Mergers, Market Structure, and Burdens of Proof’ (2018) Yale Law Journal 127(7) 1996

This paper, which can be found here, deals with the ‘structural presumption’ for merger control set out in US law by the Philadelphia National Bank case in 1963. In this case, the Supreme Court stated: “That ‘competition is likely to be greatest when there are many sellers, none of which has any significant market share,’ is common ground among most economists, and was undoubtedly a premise of congressional reasoning about the antimerger statute.’ The Supreme Court held that a merger producing a firm that controls an “undue percentage share” of the market and that “results in a significant increase in the concentration of firms in that market” is “inherently likely to lessen competition substantially.” As a result, the merger should be prohibited, at least “in the absence of evidence clearly showing that the merger is not likely to have such anticompetitive effects” The merging parties can then rebut this structural presumption by showing that the market shares do not accurately…