AND · 15usc1:restraint.market-power
Under the Rule of Reason (absent direct proof of actual detrimental effects on price or output under FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986)), plaintiff must define a relevant product and geographic market and prove defendants possess market power within it.
Exact element source
in restraint of trade or commerceSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1; Unicode character offsets [135:168] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c248965c2c712de1e3f3d52a17be4c90dfdcac5d3f9fea0b7220b164e2c2973.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| rule-of-reason-factor/market-power-of-manufacturer-or-retailer | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/551/0877-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 — rule-announced/merits | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 4 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/385/0740-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2005 — rule-announced/merits; /f-supp/864/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 — applied/alternative; /f3d/117/1137-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997 — rule-announced/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/385/0740-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2005 | Relevant product/geographic market definition and market power under the Rule of Reason | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / meritsMarket power is necessary under the rule of reason but cannot convert a restraint into a per se violation; whether Caremark has it is not decided. | Unspecified variant | there appears to be no authority (and indeed none is found in the cases North Jackson cites) to support the notion that substantial market power is a sufficient, rather than a necessary, basis for finding that a given restraint is per se unlawful under Section 1Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_385.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/385/0740-01; Unicode character offsets [29159:29421] (end exclusive); SHA-256 061c34d0b500376f04d011b5ab2e2f1ac60dba2bb321f15089be5be4b7c5e5d9. |
| /f-supp/864/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 | Relevant product/geographic market definition and market power under the Rule of Reason | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative count: Count I; subject: count=Count I Court criticises a single-brand market (services to members of defendant's own PPO) as circular but expressly does not rest on it. The test sentence ("Plaintiff must, therefore, define the market and establish market power") is filed as the rule line of the restraint.per-se Count I block. | Unspecified variant | He has limited the product market to a service rendered solely by Defendants.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [34782:34859] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3. |
| /f3d/117/1137-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997 | Relevant product/geographic market definition and market power under the Rule of Reason | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/496/0403-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 | Relevant product/geographic market definition and market power under the Rule of Reason | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/551/0877-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 | Relevant product/geographic market definition and market power under the Rule of Reason | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits theory: vertical minimum resale price maintenance agreements between manufacturer and retailers; subject: theory=vertical minimum resale price maintenance agreements between manufacturer and retailers | rule-of-reason-factor/market-power-of-manufacturer-or-retailer | As a final matter, that a dominant manufacturer or retailer can abuse resale price maintenance for anticompetitive purposes may not be a serious concern unless the relevant entity has market power.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_551.jsonl#/us/551/0877-01; Unicode character offsets [33439:33636] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6dc0b5ffec12ec474152aa4935b052042835b8bd19a739a908c122c1a115df37. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
As a final matter, that a dominant manufacturer or retailer can abuse resale price maintenance for anticompetitive purposes may not be a serious concern unless the relevant entity has market power.
/us/551/0877-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
As a final matter, that a dominant manufacturer or retailer can abuse resale price maintenance for anticompetitive purposes may not be a serious concern unless the relevant entity has market power.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_551.jsonl#/us/551/0877-01; Unicode character offsets [33439:33636] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6dc0b5ffec12ec474152aa4935b052042835b8bd19a739a908c122c1a115df37.Under the Rule of Reason (absent direct proof of actual detrimental effects on price or output under FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986)), plaintiff must define a relevant product and geographic market and prove defendants possess market power within it.
interpretation
Plaintiff must, therefore, define the market and establish market power.
/f-supp/864/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994
Plaintiff must, therefore, define the market and establish market power.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [34369:34441] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.Under the Rule of Reason (absent direct proof of actual detrimental effects on price or output under FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986)), plaintiff must define a relevant product and geographic market and prove defendants possess market power within it.
interpretation
there appears to be no authority (and indeed none is found in the cases North Jackson cites) to support the notion that substantial market power is a sufficient, rather than a necessary, basis for finding that a given restraint is per se unlawful under Section 1
/f-supp-2d/385/0740-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2005
there appears to be no authority (and indeed none is found in the cases North Jackson cites) to support the notion that substantial market power is a sufficient, rather than a necessary, basis for finding that a given restraint is per se unlawful under Section 1Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_385.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/385/0740-01; Unicode character offsets [29159:29421] (end exclusive); SHA-256 061c34d0b500376f04d011b5ab2e2f1ac60dba2bb321f15089be5be4b7c5e5d9.Under the Rule of Reason (absent direct proof of actual detrimental effects on price or output under FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986)), plaintiff must define a relevant product and geographic market and prove defendants possess market power within it.