The Sound of One Hand Clapping: The 2010 Merger Guidelines and the Challenge of Judicial Adoption
There is ample justification for the consensus view that the Horizontal Merger Guidelines have proven one of antitrust law’s great successes in the grounding of antitrust doctrine within economic learning. The foundation of the Guidelines’ success has been its widespread adoption by federal courts, which have embraced its rigorous underlying economic logic and analytical approach to merger analysis under the Clayton Act. While some have suggested that the Guidelines’ most recent iteration might jeopardize this record of judicial adoption by downplaying the role of market definition and updating its unilateral effects analysis, we believe that these updates are generally beneficial and include long-overdue shifts away from antiquated structural presumptions in favor of analyzing competitive effects directly where possible. However, this article explores a different reason to be concerned that the 2010 Guidelines may not enjoy widespread judicial adoption: the 2010 Guidelines asymmetrically update economic insights underlying merger analysis. While the 2010 Guidelines’ updated economic thinking on market definition and unilateral effects will likely render the prima facie burden facing plaintiffs easier to satisfy in merger analysis moving forward, and thus have significant practical impact, the Guidelines do not correspondingly update efficiencies analysis, leaving it largely as it first appeared 13 years earlier. We discuss two well-qualified candidates for “economic updates” of efficiencies analysis under the Guidelines: (1) out-of-market efficiencies and (2) fixed-cost savings. We conclude with some thoughts about the implications of the asymmetric updates for judicial adoption of the 2010 Guidelines.
KeywordsMerger Guidelines Efficiencies Fixed costs Unilateral effects UPP Antitrust
- Antitrust Modernization Comm’n. (2007). Report and recommendations, pp. 58–59.Google Scholar
- Baker J. (2003) Responding to developments in economics and the courts: Entry in the merger guidelines. Antitrust Law Journal 71: 189–206Google Scholar
- Baye, M. et al. (2010, June 4). Proposed horizontal merger guidelines: Economists’ comment. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/hmgrevisedguides/548050-00017.pdf.
- Baye, M. & Wright, J. (forthcoming 2011). Is antitrust too complicated for generalist judges? Journal of Law & Economics, 54. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1319888.
- Brannon, L. & Bradish, K. (2010). The revised horizontal merger guidelines: Can the courts be persuaded? Antitrust Source. Retrieved 1–4 October, 2010, from http://www.abanet.org/antitrust/atsource/10/10/Oct10-Brannon10-21f.pdf.
- Brown Shoe Co. v. U.S. (1962). 370 U.S. 294.Google Scholar
- Coate, M. & Heimert, A. (2009). Merger efficiencies at the Federal Trade Commission 1997–2007. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/02/0902mergerefficiencies.pdf.
- Comment of Scheffman, Director, Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission. (2002, December 10). Understanding mergers: Strategy & planning, implementation and outcomes (Transcript of roundtable sponsored by the Bureau of Economics). Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/be/rt/xscriptpanel4.pdf.
- Easterbrook F. (1984) The limits of antitrust. Texas Law Review 63: 1–40Google Scholar
- Farrell, J. & Shapiro, C. (2010). Antitrust evaluation of horizontal mergers: An economic alternative to market definition. B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, 10. Retrieved from http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/alternative.pdf.
- FTC v. Procter & Gamble Co. (1967). 386 U.S. 568.Google Scholar
- FTC v. Staples, Inc. (D.D.C. 1997). 970 F. Supp. 1066.Google Scholar
- Kattan J. (1994) Efficiencies and merger analysis. Antitrust Law Journal 62: 513–535Google Scholar
- Kolasky W., Dick A. (2003) The merger guidelines and the integration of efficiencies into antitrust review of horizontal mergers. Antitrust Law Journal 71: 207–251Google Scholar
- Kovacic W. (2003) The modern evolution of competition policy enforcement norms. Antitrust Law Journal 71: 377–478Google Scholar
- Muris, T. & Sayyed, B. (2010). Three key principles for revising the horizontal merger guidelines. Antitrust Source. Retrieved April 1–13, 2010, from http://www.abanet.org/antitrust/at-source/10/04/Apr10-Muris4-14f.pdf.
- Posner R. (2001). Antitrust Law (2nd Ed.).Google Scholar
- RSR Corp. v. FTC, 602 F.2d 1317, 1325 (9th Cir. 1979).Google Scholar
- Salop, S. & Moresi, S. (2009, November). Updating the merger guidelines: Comments, horizontal merger guidelines review project. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/horizontalmergerguides/545095-00032.pdf.
- Salop, S. & Moresi, S. (2010). Horizontal merger guidelines: Summary of proposed revisions. Retrieved from http://www.crai.com/uploadedFiles/Publications/horizontal-merger-guidelines-summary-of-proposed-revisions.pdf?n=3690.
- Shapiro C. (2010) The 2010 horizontal merger guidelines: From hedgehog to fox in forty years. Antitrust Law Journal 77: 49–107Google Scholar
- Shapiro, C. (2010b, November 18). Update from the Antitrust Division (Remarks as prepared for the antitrust Bar association section of antitrust law fall forum, Washington, D.C.). Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/264295.pdf.
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice. (1982). Merger guidelines.Google Scholar
- U.S Dep’t of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm’n. (2006). Commentary on the horizontal merger guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/215247.htm.
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm’n. (1992). Horizontal merger guidelines.Google Scholar
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm’n. (as amended Apr. 8, 1997). Horizontal merger guidelines Section 4. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/atr/hmerger/11251.htm.
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm’n. (2010). Horizontal merger guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/hmg-2010.pdf.
- U.S. v. Philadelphia Nat’l Bank. (1963). 374 U.S. 321.Google Scholar
- U.S. v. Von’s Grocery. (1966). 380 U.S. 270.Google Scholar
- United States v. Kinder. (2d Cir. 1995). 64 F.3d 757, 771–772.Google Scholar
- Wall, D. & Kaiser, H. (2010, April 24). What the new merger guidelines mean for technology companies. Retrieved from http://www.lw.com/upload/pubContent/_pdf/pub3492_1.pdf.
- Wright, J. (2010a, October 26). Will federal courts adopt the 2010 HMGs? Truth on the market. Retrieved from http://truthonthemarket.com/2010/10/26/will-federal-courts-adopt-the-2010-hmgs/.
- Wright, J. (2010b, May 31). Comment on the proposed update on the horizontal merger guidelines: Accounting for out-of-market efficiencies. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/hmgrevisedguides/548050-00008.pdf.