Monopolization requires monopoly power in a relevant market and willful acquisition or maintenance of that power through anticompetitive conduct rather than superior products or business acumen.
Unilateral conduct is reachable, unlike under Section 1.
Alternative Names:
Section 2|Sherman Section 2
Why it Matters?
Possession of monopoly power is lawful, and the claim requires exclusionary conduct beyond competing effectively, which is the distinction defendants press since growth through better products or lower prices cannot support liability regardless of resulting share. Refusals to deal are presumptively lawful under Trinko subject to the narrow Aspen Skiing exception. Defining the relevant market broadly defeats the monopoly power element entirely.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
Is monopoly power itself unlawful?
Are refusals to deal actionable?
