The claim requires monopoly power in a relevant market and anticompetitive conduct acquiring or maintaining that power, as distinguished from growth resulting from a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.
Conduct must harm competition rather than competitors.
Alternative Names:
Monopolization Claim|Unlawful Monopolization
Why it Matters?
Harm to competition rather than to competitors is the analytical distinction that defeats many claims, since a rival driven from the market by aggressive but efficient competition suffers no antitrust injury and the claim fails regardless of the rival's losses. Establishing that the challenged conduct benefited consumers through lower prices, better products, or greater output is the defense. Conduct with no efficiency justification faces harder scrutiny.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What is the key distinction?
What defends the conduct?
