Allocating Costs in Ninth Circuit Predatory Pricing Cases: Marsann Co. v. Brammall, Inc. and its Problematic Progeny, Inglis v. Continental Baking and Thales v. Matsushita

Wazzan, C. Paul; Frech, H. E.

doi:10.1177/0003603x0905400305

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2009

2022

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Book2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent4

Authors

Journals

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3, 12-13). Estimating marginal or average variable costs in the common case of multiple products and locations is especially difficult (Wazzan and Frech 2009). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic Rationality and the Areeda–Turner Rule

Comanor

Frech

2015

Rev Ind Organ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Areeda-Turner rule in U.S. antitrust jurisprudence limits successful predatory pricing cases to circumstances where prices can be shown to have been set below marginal costs. While not cast so, the rule reflects the view that predatory pricing is rarely attempted; and even where attempted is rarely successful; and even where attempted and successful, is difficult to identify. In this paper, we examine the theoretical and empirical foundations of this rule, and conclude that it is time to demote the Areeda-Turner analysis from the status of a rule to that of a potentially useful form of inquiry in predatory pricing litigation, but one which is neither necessary nor dispositive.

show abstract

“…3, 12-13). Estimating marginal or average variable costs in the common case of multiple products and locations is especially difficult (Wazzan and Frech 2009). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%