IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v12y2016i2p341-350..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Hypothetical Monopolist Test In Sysco: A Litigation Muddle Needing Analytic Clarity

Author

Listed:
  • Gregory J. Werden

Abstract

The Sysco case demonstrates both significant confusion on the application of the hypothetical monopolist test (HMT) and systemic flaws in the way experts provide evidence. I first explain how the HMT actually works, and then show how the expert testimony on the HMT in Sysco was confusing and possibly misunderstood. I conclude by proposing three structural reforms to merger litigation that would make technical matters like the HMT much clearer to generalist judges.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory J. Werden, 2016. "The Hypothetical Monopolist Test In Sysco: A Litigation Muddle Needing Analytic Clarity," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 341-350.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:12:y:2016:i:2:p:341-350.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhw008
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zevgolis Nikolaos E. & Fotis Panagiotis N., 2019. "A Rule of Reason Approach for Passive Minority Interests within the European Union," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 15(3), pages 1-41, November.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:12:y:2016:i:2:p:341-350.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.