THE HYPOTHETICAL MONOPOLIST TEST IN SYSCO: A LITIGATION MUDDLE NEEDING ANALYTIC CLARITY

Gregory J. Werden

Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2016, vol. 12, issue 2, 341-350

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.

JEL-codes: K21 L41 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhw008 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:12:y:2016:i:2:p:341-350.

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Competition Law and Economics is currently edited by Nicholas Economides, Amelia Fletcher, Michal Gal, Damien Geradin, Ioannis Lianos and Tommaso Valletti

More articles in Journal of Competition Law and Economics from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().