IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlawec/doi10.1086-738355.html

Supplier Retaliation and the Illinois Brick Rule

Author

Listed:
  • Douglas C. Turner

Abstract

I analyze a two-stage game of incomplete information in which a supplier is uncertain regarding a retailer’s propensity to sue. In the first stage, the retailer decides whether to file an antitrust claim against its supplier. In the second stage, the supplier decides whether to retaliate by refusing to supply the input. Choosing to sue in the first stage signals a high propensity to bring additional costly litigation in the future. When the retailer’s claim is relatively small, the threat of a refusal to deal can deter the retailer from initiating litigation against the supplier. Permitting indirect purchaser suits may strengthen private antitrust enforcement in these settings. However, when the retailer’s claim is large, the supplier does not retaliate. A reversal of the Illinois Brick rule weakens private antitrust enforcement in this case by dividing the right to sue between direct and indirect purchasers.

Suggested Citation

  • Douglas C. Turner, 2026. "Supplier Retaliation and the Illinois Brick Rule," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 69(3), pages 543-587.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/738355
    DOI: 10.1086/738355
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/738355
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/738355
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/738355?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/738355. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE .

    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.