#319 Can We Define Overlapping Markets? Understanding the Legal and Economic Arguments
Mar 31, 2025
auto_awesome
In this engaging discussion, Keith Klovers, Counsel at Latham & Watkins LLP and a former advisor to FTC commissioners, delves into the controversial concept of overlapping markets in antitrust law. He argues that these ideas lack solid judicial support, proposing alternative approaches for better market definition. The conversation touches on historical cases, the complexities of two-sided markets, and the implications for competition assessments. Amidst the serious analysis, Keith also shares quirky personal insights, blending humor with expert knowledge.
The concept of overlapping markets in antitrust law lacks solid economic foundation, complicating legal judgments and market definitions.
Adopting a one market per transaction principle could enhance clarity in antitrust analysis and improve consistency in legal applications.
Deep dives
The Relevance of Overlapping Markets in Antitrust Law
The concept of overlapping markets has garnered significant attention in antitrust law due to its implications for defining competition and market power. Overlapping markets, also known as sub-markets, lack a solid economic foundation, prompting experts to argue against their use in legal judgments. Recent trends show an increasing inclination to define both narrow and broad markets simultaneously, complicating traditional antitrust analysis. This duality can blur the clarity needed for effective antitrust enforcement, altering the legal landscape and raising concerns regarding the validity of market definitions.
Economic Critique of Overlapping Markets
Economically, the overlapping markets concept creates ambiguity in assessing market power and competitive constraints. Critics argue that it transforms straightforward market definitions into a complex framework that allows for manipulation, ultimately undermining economic analysis. For instance, if cookies are analyzed as both a general cookie market and a specific chocolate chip cookie market, it complicates understanding consumer behavior and substitution patterns. This lack of clear economic rationale not only affects legal outcomes but also diminishes the predictability of antitrust enforcement for firms.
Legal Foundations and Implications of Market Definitions
Legal precedent, particularly the Brown Shoe case, illustrates the misunderstanding surrounding overlapping markets, as it did not support the notion of sub-markets even though it has been commonly cited in merger guidelines. The Supreme Court's rejection of narrower market definitions in Brown Shoe emphasizes the need for clarity regarding market boundaries in antitrust cases. Relying on this case as a basis for overlapping markets raises questions about the validity of such definitions in current antitrust analysis. Such legal inconsistencies can lead to outcomes where firms operate under uncertain competitive constraints, jeopardizing fair competition.
Potential for Reform in Antitrust Analysis
The adoption of a one market per transaction principle, as derived from the American Express case, offers a potential reform to streamline antitrust analysis. This principle suggests that while multiple markets can exist, they should not overlap; each market should be evaluated distinctly based on competitive constraints. Applying this framework can enhance clarity in how markets are defined and assessed, which ultimately aids in fairer antitrust evaluations. As new administrations consider economic analysis more critically, a shift towards this principle may lead to more consistent and economically sound applications of antitrust law.
Market definition plays a central role in antitrust analysis. Is it appropriate for the U.S. antitrust agencies to identify "overlapping markets" and "submarkets" as relevant markets for antitrust purposes? Keith Klovers, Counsel at Latham & Watkins and former advisor to FTC commissioners Christine S. Wilson and Maureen K. Ohlhausen, talks to Blair Matthews and Anora Wang about why, in his view, the concepts of overlapping markets and submarkets are unsupported by judicial law and economics. Listen to this episode to learn about the alternative approach to market definition that Keith and other practitioners believe are better suited for antitrust analysis.