Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 34 Publications by Richard Epstein
Written Testimonies & Filings As former judges and government officials, legal academics and economists who are experts in antitrust and intellectual property law, we write to express our support . . .
As former judges and government officials, legal academics and economists who are experts in antitrust and intellectual property law, we write to express our support for the Avanci business review letter issued by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice on July 28, 2020 (the “2020 business review letter”). The 2020 business review letter represented a legally sound and evidence-based approach in applying antitrust law to innovative commercial institutions like the Avanci patent pool that facilitate the efficient commercialization of new standardized technologies in the fast-growing mobile telecommunications sector to the benefit of innovators, implementers, and consumers alike.
Read the full letter here.
Amicus Brief Amici curiae are seventeen law professors, economists, and former government officials with expertise in antitrust, patent law, and law and economics.
Amici curiae are seventeen law professors, economists, and former government officials with expertise in antitrust, patent law, and law and economics. Their work has appeared in the American Economic Review, the Journal of Law and Economics, the Yale Law Journal, and the Harvard Law Review, among others, and collectively has been cited more than 16,000 times. As scholars and former public servants, they have an interest in promoting the coherence and development of legal doctrines consonant with sound economic principles and in ensuring that both consumers and the general public benefit from new inventions and technologies. They have no stake in any party nor in the outcome of this proceeding. Amici write to serve the Commission and the public interest by elaborating the legal and economic principles that frame this dispute. The amici and their affiliations are listed in the Appendix.
This case presents a complex set of transactions whereby Illumina, Inc. (“Illumina”) created GRAIL, Inc. (“GRAIL”), spun it off while retaining a minority interest, and now has reacquired it. Complaint Counsel seeks to unwind this recent reacquisition. But as Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell’s Initial Decision (“ID”) recognized, vertical mergers are structurally distinct from horizontal mergers. Horizontal mergers carry inherent risks of anti-competitive effect; vertical mergers, by contrast, often offer procompetitive benefits. (See ID 169.) Unwinding this transaction would set a dangerous precedent by deterring innovative companies like Illumina from developing and commercializing new products or, at a minimum, restricting consumers’ access to those products. Antitrust enforcers should be held to a higher burden before risking such market disruptions.
An overbroad presumption against vertical mergers—of the type Complaint Counsel advocates here—is particularly inappropriate in the complicated institutional landscape of biopharmaceutical markets, especially those still in their infancy. Here, for example, it is difficult to predict how the market for Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tests (“MCEDs”) will operate, particularly when true alternatives to GRAIL’s products from other producers are still years away. (See ID 143.) Given the singular importance of capital investment in developing, testing, and commercializing MCEDs, the risks to consumers of blocking such investment are particularly high. Accordingly, courts have refused to enjoin vertical mergers without compelling, concrete evidence that a vertical merger is likely to harm competition to a substantial degree. See, e.g., United States v. AT&T, Inc., 916 F.3d 1029, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2019). Scholars and courts alike have recognized that the efficiency gains from vertical mergers make it impossible to treat this class of transactions as presumptively anticompetitive. As Judge Chappell acknowledged, challenges to vertical mergers require a more fact-intensive inquiry. (ID 168-69.)
Nor should a company’s self-imposed restraints, such as Illumina’s Open Offer, be discounted in the way that Complaint Counsel advocates. (See Complaint Counsel Br. (“CC Br.”) 35.) The Open Offer is a market fact, not a legal remedy, and implicates Complaint Counsel’s prima facie case. Market participants should be encouraged to structure their operations ex ante to avoid potential anticompetitive effects. When markets are new and incentives are speculative, the Commission should not presume that a company in a vertical merger would breach its contractual obligations, especially when there are clear performance metrics that are easily monitored and enforced by the relevant parties.
The potential costs of preventing vertical mergers are high, as experience in emerging-technology markets amply demonstrates. Given the ultimate benefits to consumers, the Commission should be wary about importing the strong presumptions from horizontal-merger law and upsetting a model of spin-off and reacquisition that offers significant procompetitive benefits to consumers.
Read the full brief here.
Amicus Brief In this brief for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ICLE and 26 distinguished scholars of law & economics argue that the district court in a suit brought by Epic Games rightly found that Apple’s procompetitive justifications outweigh any purported anticompetitive effects in the market for mobile-gaming transactions.
The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) is a nonprofit, non- partisan global research and policy center aimed at building the intellectual foundations for sensible, economically grounded policy. ICLE promotes the use of law & economics methodologies to inform public policy debates and has longstanding expertise in the evaluation of antitrust law and policy.
Amici also include 26 scholars of antitrust, law, and economics at leading universities and research institutions around the world. Their names, titles, and academic affiliations are listed in Addendum A. All have longstanding expertise in, and copious research on, antitrust law and economics.
Amici have an interest in ensuring that antitrust promotes the public interest by remaining grounded in sensible legal rules informed by sound economic analysis. Amici believe that Epic’s arguments deviate from that standard and promote the private interests of slighted competitors at the expense of the public welfare.
Epic challenges Apple’s prohibition of third-party app stores and in-app payments (“IAP”) systems from operating on its proprietary, iOS platform as a violation of the antitrust laws. But, as the district court concluded, Epic’s real concern is its own business interests in the face of Apple’s business model—in particular, the commission charged for the use of Apple’s IAP system. See Order at 1-ER22, Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 4:20-CV-05640 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2021), ECF No. 812 (1-ER3–183). In essence, Epic is trying to recast its objection to Apple’s 30% commission for use of Apple’s optional IAP system as a harm to consumers and competition more broadly.
Epic takes issue with the district court’s proper consideration of Apple’s procompetitive justifications and its finding that those justifications outweigh any anticompetitive effects of Apple’s business model. But Epic’s case fails at step one of the rule of reason analysis. Indeed, Epic did not demonstrate that Apple’s app distribution and IAP practices caused the significant market-wide effects that the Supreme Court in Ohio v. Am. Express Co. (“Amex”) deemed necessary to show anticompetitive harm in cases involving two-sided transaction markets. 138 S. Ct. 2274, 2285–86 (2018). While the district court found that Epic demonstrated some anticompetitive effects, Epic’s arguments below focused only on the effects that Apple’s conduct had on certain app developers and failed to appropriately examine whether consumers were harmed overall. This is fatal. Without further evidence of the effect of Apple’s app distribution and IAP practices on consumers, no conclusions can be reached about the competitive effects of Apple’s conduct.
Nor can an appropriate examination of anticompetitive effects ignore output. It is critical to consider whether the challenged app distribution and IAP practices reduce output of market-wide app transactions. Yet Epic did not seriously challenge that output increased by every measure, and Epic’s Amici ignore output altogether.
Moreover, the district court examined the one-sided anticompetitive harms presented by Epic, but rightly found that Apple’s procompetitive justifications outweigh any purported anticompetitive effects in the market for mobile gaming transactions. The court recognized that the development and maintenance of a closed iOS system and Apple’s control over IAP confers enormous benefits on users and app developers.
Finally, Epic’s reliance on the theoretical existence of less restrictive alternatives (“LRA”) to Apple’s business model is misplaced. Forcing Apple to adopt the “open” platform that Epic champions would reduce interbrand competition, and improperly permit antitrust plaintiffs to commandeer the judiciary to modify routine business conduct any time a plaintiff’s attorney or district court can imagine a less restrictive version of a challenged practice, irrespective of whether the practice promotes consumer welfare. See NCAA v. Alston, 141 S. Ct. 2141, 2161 (2021) (“[C]ourts should not second-guess ‘degrees of reasonable necessity’ so that ‘the lawfulness of conduct turn[s] upon judgments of degrees of e?ciency.’”). Particularly in the context of two-sided platform businesses, such an approach would sacrifice interbrand, systems-level competition for the sake of a superficial increase in competition among a small subset of platform users.
Amicus Brief In this amicus brief for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, ICLE and a dozen scholars of law & economics address the broad consensus disfavoring how New York and other states seek to apply the “unilateral refusal to deal” doctrine in an antitrust case against Facebook.
Amici are leading scholars of economics, telecommunications, and/or antitrust. Their scholarship reflects years of experience and publications in these fields.
Amici’s expertise and academic perspectives will aid the Court in deciding whether to affirm in three respects. First, amici provide an explanation of key economic concepts underpinning how economists understand the welfare effects of a monopolist’s refusal to deal voluntarily with a competitor and why that supports affirmance here. Second, amici offer their perspective on the limited circumstances that might justify penalizing a monopolist’s unilateral refusal to deal—and why this case is not one of them. Third, amici explain why the District Court’s legal framework was correct and why a clear standard is necessary when analyzing alleged refusals to deal.
This brief addresses the broad consensus in the academic literature disfavoring a theory underlying plaintiff’s case—“unilateral refusal to deal” doctrine. The States allege that Facebook restricted access to an input (Facebook’s Platform) in order to prevent third parties from using that access to export Facebook data to competitors or compete directly with Facebook. But a unilateral refusal to deal involves more than an allegation that a monopolist refuses to enter into a business relationship with a rival.
Mainstream economists and competition law scholars are skeptical of imposing liability, even on a monopolist, based solely on its choice of business partners. The freedom of firms to choose their business partners is a fundamental tenet of the free market economy, and the mechanism by which markets produce the greatest welfare gains. Thus, cases compelling business dealings should be confined to particularly delineated circumstances.
In Part I below, amici describe why it is generally inefficient for courts to compel economic actors to deal with one another. Such “solutions” are generally unsound in theory and unworkable in practice, in that they ask judges to operate as regulators over the defendant’s business.
In Part II, amici explain why Aspen Skiing—the Supreme Court’s most prominent precedent permitting liability for a monopolist’s unilateral refusal to deal—went too far and should not be expanded as the States’ and some of their amici propose.
In Part III, amici explain that the District Court correctly held that the conduct at issue here does not constitute a refusal to deal under Aspen Skiing. A unilateral refusal to deal should trigger antitrust liability only where a monopolist turns down more profitable dealings with a competitor in an effort to drive that competitor’s exit or to disable its ability to compete, thereby allowing the monopolist to recoup its losses by increasing prices in the future. But the States’ allegations do not describe that scenario.
In Part IV, amici address that the District Court properly considered and dismissed the States’ “conditional dealing” argument. The States’ allegations are correctly addressed under the rubric of a refusal to deal—not exclusive dealing or otherwise. The States’ desire to mold their allegations into different legal theories highlights why courts should use a strict, clear standard to analyze refusals to deal.
Regulatory Comments Comments of Scholars of Law, Economics, and Business Draft USPTO, NIST, & DOJ Policy Statement on Licensing Negotiations and Remedies for Standard-Essential Patents Subject to . . .
We are scholars of law, economics, and business who work in areas related to intellectual property, antitrust, strategy, and innovation. We write to express our concerns with the December 6, 2021, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (DOJ) draft statement on remedies for the infringement of standard-essential patents (SEPs) (“Draft Policy Statement”).[1] This statement would effectively repudiate guidance published by these same agencies in 2019.[2]
While the Draft Policy Statement may seem even-handed at first sight, its implementation would have far-reaching consequences that would significantly tilt the balance of power in SEP-reliant industries, in favor of implementers and to the detriment of inventors. In turn, this imbalance is liable to harm consumers through reduced innovation, resulting from higher contract-enforcement costs and lower returns to groundbreaking innovations. And by making it harder for U.S. tech firms to enforce their intellectual property (IP) rights against foreign companies, the Draft Policy Statement threatens to erode America’s tech-sector leadership.
Read the full comments here.
[1] U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Draft Policy Statement on Licensing Negotiations and Remedies for Standard-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments (Dec. 6, 2021), available at https://www.justice.gov/atr/page/file/1453471/download [hereinafter “Draft Policy Statement”].
[2] U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Policy Statement on Licensing Remedies for Standard-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments (Dec. 19, 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/SEP%20policy%20statement%20signed.pdf.
Regulatory Comments Abstract This comment by 27 law professors, economists and former government officials was submitted to the Department of Justice in response to a call for . . .
This comment by 27 law professors, economists and former government officials was submitted to the Department of Justice in response to a call for comments on a draft policy statement on standard essential patents (SEPs). Although the draft policy statement is right to seek a “balanced, fact-based analysis [that] will facilitate and help to preserve competition and incentives for innovation and continued participation in voluntary, consensus-based standard-setting activity,” the comment identifies how its proposals fail to accomplish this goal. First, the draft policy statement fails to account for the extensive scholarly research and rigorous empirical studies identifying numerous substantive and methodological flaws in the “patent holdup” theory, including its failed predictions of high prices, less innovation, and less market competition; instead, a growing mobile communications marketplace has existed for several decades. Second, the draft policy statement micro-manages the negotiation and litigation process for SEPs, which would make injunctions and exclusion orders at the International Trade Commission a de facto nullity for SEPs. This special rule effectively prohibiting injunctions contradicts repeated court decisions in both the U.S. and Europe concerning the general availability of all patent remedies for SEPs. Ultimately, the draft policy statement incentivizes strategic holdout by implementers and de facto prohibits injunctive relief for ongoing infringement of an SEP by an unwilling licensee. This would harm U.S. innovators facing increasing economic and strategic competition from China. It also threatens U.S. economic leadership and its national security, which contradicts the expressly stated goal of President Joseph Biden’s Executive Order, the progenitor of this draft policy statement, of “preserving America’s role as the world’s leading economy.” Thus, the 27 legal academics, economists, and former government officials urge the agencies to reconsider its draft policy statement on SEPs. The comment includes an Appendix of the literature on the licensing and enforcement of SEPs.
Amicus Brief A brief of amici curiae from the International Center for Law & Economics and other notable law & economics scholars in the 10th Circuit case of Sanofi v Mylan.
Sanofi is seeking to overturn the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Mylan, which held that Mylan’s EpiPen rebate agreements (loyalty discounts) did not foreclose Sanofi from competing in the market for epinephrine auto-injectors. As this brief argues, finding in favor of Sanofi would mark a misguided departure from the error-cost framework that has been the linchpin of modern antitrust enforcement. Loyalty discounts – and the lower prices they bring – routinely benefit consumers. The Court accordingly should not endorse a dubious theory of harm that does not adequately distinguish between procompetitive and anticompetitive behavior, as doing so would chill firms’ incentives to compete on price.
Anticompetitive (that is, consumer-harming) strategies capable of foreclosing even efficient competitors are difficult – often impossible – to distinguish from vigorous competition (which benefits consumers). Courts are compelled to rely on a limited set of observable parameters to infer whether a firm’s behavior falls under one or the other category. This process entails significant pitfalls. See Geoffrey A. Manne & Joshua D. Wright, If Search Neutrality Is the Answer, What’s the Question?, 2012 Colum. Bus. L. Rev. 151, 184-85 (“The key challenge facing any proposed analytical framework for evaluating monopolization claims is distinguishing pro-competitive from anticompetitive conduct. Antitrust errors are inevitable because much of what is potentially actionable conduct under the antitrust laws frequently actually benefits consumers, and generalist judges are called upon to identify anticompetitive conduct with imperfect information.”).
When it comes to allegedly anticompetitive lowering of prices – predation, discounts, and rebates – low prices themselves are the posited mechanism for anticompetitive foreclosure and thus a key component of the liability regimes pertaining to pricing practices. Yet low prices are also precisely the consumer benefit that antitrust law ordinarily seeks to preserve, especially when these low prices are sustained in the long run. In almost every circumstance, rebates and discounts represent welfare-enhancing price competition; nevertheless, economic theory teaches that strategic pricing can be anticompetitive. As Judge Easterbrook described, “[l]ow prices and large plants may be competitive and beneficial, or they may be exclusionary and harmful. We need a way to distinguish competition from exclusion without penalizing competition.” Frank H. Easterbrook, The Limits of Antitrust, 63 Tex. L. Rev. 1, 26 (1984). In short, false positives in these settings may be especially costly because they penalize consumer-benefiting low prices.
The challenge for courts is distinguishing between robust competition and anticompetitive conduct when a primary indicator of both – low prices – is the same. Although the dividing line will always be imperfect such that it is not always clear when anticompetitive conduct is occurring, the academic literature and the courts have established guiding rules and standards designed to minimize error, maximize ease of administration, and protect consumer welfare. Sanofi’s approach, by contrast, would increase the risks of wrongly imposing antitrust liability and, in turn, harming consumers, while being more difficult to administer.
Read the full amicus brief here.
Written Testimonies & Filings Pursuant to the House Judiciary Committee’s request for information to aid its inquiry concerning the state of existing antitrust laws, Antitrust Economists, Legal Scholars, and Practitioners offer the following joint submission.
Pursuant to the Committee’s request for information to aid its inquiry concerning the state of existing antitrust laws, we offer the following joint submission:
We are economists, legal scholars, and practitioners—focused on antitrust law, economics, and policy—who believe in maintaining healthy markets and well-functioning antitrust institutions. We value the important role of antitrust as the “Magna Carta of free enterprise,” which sets the rules that govern how firms compete against one another in our modern economy. Many of us have served in antitrust enforcement agencies. Each of us believes it is vital that the antitrust laws promote competitive markets, innovation, and productivity by deterring anticompetitive conduct throughout our economy, including in digital markets.
We write because the modern antitrust debate has become characterized by sustained attacks on the integrity of antitrust institutions and by unsubstantiated dismissals of debate. This atmosphere has led to a variety of proposals for radical changes to the antitrust laws and their enforcement that we believe are unsupported by the evidence, counterproductive to promoting competition and consumer welfare, and offered with an unwarranted degree of certainty.
Vigorous debate and disagreement have long been a hallmark of antitrust scholarship and policy. Competition policy has been formed through an iterative process echoed in the courts’evolving doctrine over more than a century. Today, however, efforts to sidestep the discussion, or to declare it over, and to force hasty and far-reaching changes have come to the fore. These proposals are numerous and include: (1) abandoning the consumer welfare standard; (2) overturning unanimous and supermajority judicial precedents, which are foundational to modern antitrust law; (3) imposing obsolete and arbitrary market share tests to determine the legality of mergers; (4) shifting the burden of proof from plaintiffs to defendants to render large swaths of business behavior presumptively unlawful; (5) creating another federal regulator to oversee competition in digital markets; (6) breaking up major tech companies or their products without evidence of antitrust harm or that the remedy would make consumers better off; and (7) imposing a general prohibition on all mergers either involving specific firms or during the current health crisis.
Such proposals would abandon the legal and political traditions that helped transform antitrust from an unprincipled and incoherent body of law, marred by internal contradictions, into a workable system that contributes positively to American competitiveness and consumer welfare. It should be noted that we use the term “consumer welfare” throughout this letter, consistent with modern parlance about competition policy, to include the benefits of competition to the welfare of workers and other input suppliers, as well as consumers. Thus, the consumer welfare standard is not a narrowly circumscribed objective, but rather a prescription for the general social wellbeing generated by the competitive process. By contrast, many of the current proposals would (1) undermine the rule of law; (2) undo the healthy evolution of antitrust law in the courts over time; (3) require antitrust agencies to micromanage the economy by picking winners and losers; (4) abandon a focus on consumer welfare in favor of vague and politically-oriented goals; and (5) undermine successful American businesses and their competitiveness in the global economy at the worst-imaginable time.
The assertions about the state of antitrust law and policy that purportedly justify these radical changes are not supported by the evidence. A more accurate reading of the evidence supports the following view of the American economy and the role of antitrust law:
We believe open discussion of existing evidence is necessary to advance contemporary debates about the performance of antitrust institutions in the digital economy. We welcome that discussion. We discuss below various dimensions of antitrust law, economics, and institutions that have been the targets of radical reform proposals. The signatories to this letter hold a steadfast belief that antitrust institutions, including the courts, are up to the task of protecting competition, and that the federal antitrust laws as written are effective in accomplishing that goal. While many signatories have offered diverse proposals to improve the functioning of those institutions—a few of which we share in this letter—we hold the common view that the proposed radical reforms would make consumers worse off in the short run and over the long haul by chilling efficient behavior and stymieing innovation.
Read the full submission here.
Amicus Brief Introduction and Summary of Argument Building and maintaining a successful brand is no small task. First you must spot a widespread need or desire that . . .
Building and maintaining a successful brand is no small task. First you must spot a widespread need or desire that no one else can see—or can even feel yet. “People don’t know what they want until you show it to them,” Steve Jobs said. An entrepreneur must aim, therefore, “to read things that are not yet on the page.” Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs 567 (2011). This, believe it or not, is sometimes the easy part.
Next, you must get people to notice you and your great idea. You must raise your voice above the modern din. This usually requires advertisements. Lots of advertisements. “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted,” nineteenth-century retailer John Wanamaker is supposed to have said; “the trouble is I don’t know which half.”
Finally, you must maintain your momentum. During a train ride, a friend asked William Wrigley why he spent so much advertising his chewing gum when he already dominated the market. “How fast do you think this train is going?” Wrigley replied. “About ninety miles an hour,” answered the friend. “Well,” said Wrigley, “do you suggest we unhitch the engine?” David Ogilvy, Ogilvy on Advertising 171-72 (1985).
All this assumes, of course, that after you have innovated, invested, and risked all to climb to the top, the antitrust laws will not thwart your efforts to recoup a reward commensurate to your sacrifices. To read the Sherman Act as “making everyone fight but forbidding anyone to be victorious” would, observed Justice Holmes, turn it into an “imbecile statute.” Ron Collins, Ask the Author: “The Great Oracle of American Legal Thought”—Revisiting the Life and Times of Justice Holmes, SCOTUSblog, http://bit.ly/2Phv3qh (Mar. 28, 2019).
With pluck, daring, and dedication, 1-800 Contacts built the online contact lens market. People had assumed that contact lenses were available only at an optometrist’s office or a brick-and-mortar store. Spending many millions of dollars on advertising, 1-800 raised awareness that contact lenses could be bought—and bought cheaply—on the web. And 1-800 did not stop there. Thanks in no small part to its continuing to advertise widely to this day, the online lens market remains a thriving one.
Many copycat firms wisely followed 1-800 into the online contact lens market. Unfortunately, however, some of these firms sought not just to share in the successful market 1-800 created, but also to directly piggyback on 1-800’s advertising. Instead of following 1-800’s lead by doing the hard and expensive work of advertising broadly—on television, in print, on the radio, and so on—these firms just bought the advertising space at the top of internet search results for terms like “1-800 Contacts.” Rather than attract new customers of their own, in other words, the firms just tried to divert 1-800’s.
1-800 sued (or threatened to sue) each of the free-riding firms for trademark infringement, and each lawsuit settled. As part of the settlements, the parties agreed not to buy advertisements keyed to navigational searches of brand names like “1-800 Contacts.” Generic search terms like “cheap contact lenses” remained fair game for all, as did advertising in all other forms of media.
The Federal Trade Commission examined whether the settlements are an antitrust violation under the Sherman Act (as applied through the FTC Act). Assuming the settlements are even a proper subject of antitrust scrutiny 1-800 argues they are not—the FTC needed at the outset to decide the standard under which to perform its review. It could choose to conduct either (a) a “quick look” analysis of the settlements’ effect on competition, or (b) a more complete “rule of reason” analysis of it. The FTC erred, we contend in this brief, in electing to take only a “quick look” before condemning the settlements:
A. The quick-look standard governs only when the conduct at issue is obviously anticompetitive. The Supreme Court has accordingly applied the quick-look standard only to agreements that explicitly suppress competition. The settlements here, which leave almost the entire universe of contact-lens advertising intact, do nothing like that. What is more, the Supreme Court has declined to apply the quick-look standard to conduct accompanied by suspicious elements, such as a de facto advertising ban or a payment to delay entry into a market, that do not exist here.
B. Even without the Supreme Court’s guidance, the need for a rule-of-reason analysis would still be clear. The FTC cited no case or research that finds behavior analogous to the settlements an unreasonable restraint of trade. This is hardly surprising given that, as the FTC itself acknowledged, search-engine keyword advertising is “relatively new.” The lack of consensus about the settlements’ effect on competition should have driven the FTC toward the rule-of-reason standard.
Not only do the settlements serve no anticompetitive ends; they serve procompetitive ones. As 1-800 and Commissioner Phillips, writing in dissent below, explain, the settlements save litigation costs and protect trademark rights.
We home in on one vital benefit of trademark protection: the suppression of advertisement free riding. 1-800’s advertising attracted customers both to purchase contact lenses online and to purchase them from 1-800 specifically. The settlements did nothing to stop the general shoppers from finding the cheapest online contact lenses, but they did stop firms from diverting customers searching for 1-800. The settlements thus helped ensure that when 1-800’s broad (and expensive) advertising attracted new customers specifically to 1-800, competitors could not poach those customers on the cheap. By foreclosing a form of advertisement free riding, the settlements preserved the incentives that lead firms to invest in advertising in the first place. And because they therefore may have promoted, rather than suppressed, advertising, the settlements should not have been declared “obviously” anticompetitive and then subjected to a mere quick look.
C. The FTC claimed that, although it need not have done so, it ultimately conducted a rule-of-reason analysis. But the FTC never defined a market. And although it looked at prices, output, and quality, its analysis was abbreviated and defective. It plainly both adopted and applied the quick-look standard. This was error.
