Question

Why did consumer sometimes deny for justice?
Give two reason

Answer 1

Introduction
Though antitrust lawyers tend to associate the Sherman Act’s Rule of Reason
analysis with balancing procompetitive benefits against anticompetitive effects,
the reality is that over 95% of Rule of Reason cases are decided without any such
balancing test. In surveying the nearly 300 Rule of Reason cases decided by
federal courts in the past 15 years, a clear pattern emerges—Rule of Reason cases
are often decided by following a burden shifting framework, with less than 5%
conducting any type of balancing. This Article explores the phenomenon and
includes an illuminating question-and-answer section by Thomas (Tim) Greaney,
a former DOJ Antitrust Division Assistant Chief and antitrust professor at Saint
Louis University School of Law.
The Sherman Act
Named after Senator John Sherman (R-OH), the Sherman Antitrust Act was
passed in 1890 and prohibits agreements that adversely affect consumers. The
Sherman Act is comprised of two key provisions—Sections 1 and 2. Section 1
prohibits contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that “unreasonably” restrain
trade. Section 2 prohibits monopolization, attempted monopolization, and
conspiracies to monopolize. This Article primarily pertains to Section 1. Under
Section 1, in determining whether an agreement unreasonably restrains
competition, courts generally apply one of two analytical standards (depending
on the nature of the agreement) known as per se and Rule of Reason.1
The per se rule is generally reserved for the narrow range of conduct that almost
always raises prices for consumers and has little or no redeeming procompetitive
value (such as price fixing or bid rigging). Under the per se rule, such predictably
pernicious restraints are deemed unlawful without any inquiry into asserted
justifications or alleged reasonableness. The per se rule, however, is one of
limited applicability.