Should American Antitrust Laws Protect Only American Consumers?

Thanh  Phan

doi:10.18034/ajtp.v4i3.424

Authors

Thanh Phan University of Victoria

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18034/ajtp.v4i3.424

Keywords:

Competition law, export cartel, consumer welfare, economic efficiency, unfettered competition, Sherman Act, Webb-Pomerene Act

Abstract

The United States adopted its first antitrust statute in 1890. Despite their long history of development, American antitrust laws do not specify any objectives. The primary objective of the American antitrust laws centers a long-standing debate among many scholars. This paper firstly argues that the American antitrust laws were designed to promote consumer welfare. However, exemptions for export cartels confine the concept of “consumers” protected by the Sherman Act to those in the U.S territory. This paper secondly proposes that exemptions for export cartels should be abolished for two reasons. First, the exemptions make American antitrust policy inconsistent because they do not reflect the objective that promotes consumer welfare. Second, from an international perspective, exemptions for export cartels are inconsistent with the efforts of the American Government to apply the Sherman Act extraterritorially—a measure that aims to protect consumers from international cartels.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Thanh Phan, University of Victoria

Ph.D. Candidate, Law Faculty, University of Victoria, USA

References

Bork, R. H. (1978) The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself. New York, U.S.: Free Press.

‘Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners in Kathleen R. REITER v. Sonotone Corporation, 442 U.S. 330 (1979)’ (1979). 1979 WL 213494 (U.S.).

Brown Shoe Co., Inc. v. United States (1962) U.S.

Connell Const. Co., Inc. v. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union No. 100 (1975) U.S.

Cseres, K. J. (2007) ‘The Controversies of the Consumer Welfare Standard’, The Competition Law Review, 3(2), p. 121.

Export Trading Company Act (1982) 15 U.S.C §§4001-4016.

Federal Trade Commission, The Antitrust Laws. Available at: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws (Accessed: 4 March 2016).

Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp. (2016) F.3d.

Hovenkamp, H. (2011) Federal Antitrust Policy: The Law of Competition and Its Practice. 4 edition. St. Paul, MN: West.

Hovenkamp, H. (2012) ‘Implementing Antitrust’s Welfare Goals Symposium: The Goals of Antitrust’, Fordham Law Review, 81, pp. 2471–2496.

Immenga, U. (1995) ‘Export Cartels and Voluntary Export Restraints between Trade and Competition Policy’, Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, 4(1), p. 93.

Jones, E. (1920) ‘The Webb-Pomerene Act’, Journal of Political Economy, 28(9), pp. 754–767. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/253299

Kleit, A. N. (1992) ‘Beyond the Rhetoric: An Inquiry into the Goal of the Sherman Act’, in. Federel Trade Comission Working Paper No. 195, FTC Bureau of Economics.

Kovacic, W. E. and Neilson, W. A. W. (1997) Advisory Report on Approaches to Competition Policy in Vietnam. WB and CIEM.

Kovacic, W. E. and Shapiro, C. (2000) ‘Antitrust Policy: A Century of Economic and Legal Thinking’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(1), pp. 43–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.1.43

Lande, R. H. (1982) ‘Wealth Transfers as the Original and Primary Concern of Antitrust: The Efficiency Interpretation Challenged’, Hasting Law Journal, 34(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2065413

Lande, R. H. and Averitt, N. W. (1998) ‘Consumer Choice: The Practical Reason for Both Antitrust and Consumer Protection Law’, Loyola Consumer Law Review, 10(1).

Merced Irrigation District v. Barclays Bank PLC (2016) 2016 WL 861327.

Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. U.S. (1958) U.S.

Orbach, B. (2013) ‘How Antitrust Lost Its Goal’, Fordham Law Review, 81, p. 2253.

Papp, F. W. (2012) ‘Competition Law and Extraterritoriality’, in Ezrachi, A. (ed.) Research Handbook on International Competition Law. Massachusetts, U.S.: Edward Elgar.

Phan, T. (2016) ‘The Legality of Extraterritorial Application of Competition Law and the Need to Adopt a Unified Approach’, Louisiana Law Review, 77(2), p. 425.

Reiter v. Sonotone Corp. (1979) U.S.

Senate Bills (1889) ‘A Bill to Declare Unlawful Trusts and Combinations in Restraint of Trade and Production’. In the Senate of The United States, 51st Congress, 1st Session.

‘Senate Debate’ (1890). 51st Cong., 1st Sess.

Shapiro, C. (2009) ‘Competition Policy In Distressed Industries’, in. Competition as Public Policy, U.S: ABA Antitrust Symposium. Available at: http://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/competition-policy-distressed-industries (Accessed: 8 February 2016).

Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan (1993) S.Ct.

Suslow, V. Y. and Levenstein, M. C. (2005) ‘The Changing International Status of Export Cartel Exemptions’, American University International Law Review, 20(4), p. 785.

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary (1890) ‘S.1 as Reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary’.

U. S. v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass’n (1968) U.S.

United States v. Topco Assocs., Inc. (1972) U.S.

United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass’n (1897) U.S.

U.S Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission (2010) ‘Horizontal Merger Guidelines’.

Webb-Pomerene Act (1918) 15 U.S.C §§ 61-66.

World Trade Organization (2003) Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy. WT/WGTCP/M/21. WTO.

Wright, J. D. and Ginsburg, D. H. (2012) ‘The Goals of Antitrust: Welfare Trumps Choice’, Fordham Law Review, 81, pp. 2405–2424.

Zumbansen, P. (2012) ‘Defining the Space of Transnational Law: Legal Theory, Global Governance and Legal Pluralism’, Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 21(2), p. 305.

--0--