The framework shifts burdens, requiring the plaintiff to show anticompetitive effect, the defendant to offer procompetitive justification, and the plaintiff to show a less restrictive alternative or that harms outweigh benefits.
Most restraints are analyzed under this standard.
Alternative Names:
Rule of Reason Analysis|Reasonableness Analysis
Why it Matters?
The burden-shifting structure gives defendants a meaningful path, since establishing a legitimate procompetitive justification shifts the burden back and plaintiffs frequently cannot identify a less restrictive alternative achieving the same benefits. Market power is also a practical prerequisite, since a defendant without it generally cannot cause anticompetitive effects, which makes market definition the first battleground in most rule of reason cases.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What path does the framework give defendants?
Why is market definition the first battleground?
