Law Journal Library - Skip to main content
Content Start

Click here to view short-term subscription options to access this document.

4 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 57 (1994-1995)
The Supreme Court's Predation Odyssey: From Fruit Pies to Cigarettes

handle is hein.journals/supeco4 and id is 61 raw text is: The Supreme Court's Predation Odyssey:
From Fruit Pies to Cigarettes
Donald J. Boudreauxt Kenneth G. Elzinga,tt
and David E. Millst
Brooke Group, Ltd. v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.-
the Supreme Court's first predatory pricing decision under
the Robinson-Patman Act since Utah Pie in 1967-makes
clear the Court's heightened skepticism toward claims of
predatory pricing. Under Brooke, plaintiffs must show not
only that a defendant had a genuine possibility of bankrupt-
ing or disciplining its prey, but also that the defendant had
a strong prospect of recouping its predatory losses. While ap-
plauding the Court's decision, the authors question the
Court's refusal to accept a rule of per se legality to govern
price cutting by members of noncollusive oligopolies. For
reasons the Court itself spelled out, price cutting by mem-
bers of noncollusive oligopolies is so unlikely a means of
successful monopolization that such pricing behavior ought
to be governed by a rule of per se legality.
Brooke Group, Ltd. v Brown & Wiliamson Tobacco Corp.1 is the
first Supreme Court decision on predatory pricing under the Rob-
inson-Patman Act since the 1967 Utah Pie case.' The outcome and
t Associate Professor of Legal Studies, Clemson University.
, Professor of Economics, University of Virginia.
, Professor of Economics, University of Virginia.
Elzinga and Mills served as consultants to Brown & Williamson during the Brooke
litigation. The authors thank Karol Ceplo, Don Dewey, Adam Pritchard, Bruce Yan-
die, and two anonymous referees for helpful discussion and comments.
1 113 S Ct 2578 (1993). At oral argument, the Supreme Court witnessed a battle
of two antitrust titans: Philip Areeda (for appellant Brooke Group) and Robert Bork
(for appellee Brown & Williamson).
2 Utah Pie Co. v Continental Baking Co., 386 US 685 (1967).
O 1995 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0-226-28685-1/95/0004-00202.00

Already a Subscriber?

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is the world’s largest image-based and fully searchable legal and academic research database. Material contained in HeinOnline is an exact replication of the original printed product, and coverage is typically comprehensive. Contact us today for a free demo of this incredible resource.

We offer annual subscriptions to all HeinOnline collections to universities, colleges, law firms, individuals, and other institutions. To request a quote or trial, please click here.

Please note: the content in the Law Journal Library is constantly changing and some content has restrictions as required per the license. Therefore, please review the available content via the following link to ensure the material you wish to access is included in the database. For a complete list of content included in the Law Journal Library, please click here.

Learn More About the Law Journal Library (pdf)
Back To Top Jump To Bottom