Abstract
The use of business documents to prove antitrust violations in court is quite problematic. This Article identifies three classes of business documents that are used by courts and antitrust agencies to determine whether antitrust violations have occurred: accounting documents, market definition documents, and intent documents. The use of each to prove economic injury is unsatisfactory. Accounting information is sufficiently disconnected from underlying economic reality that it presents a distorted and unreliable picture of economic consequences. Businesses characterize markets for myriad reasons, most having nothing to do with elasticity, the criterion of market definition relevant to the antitrust laws. Likewise, corporate actors express intentions and motivations for rhetorical and other purposes, not necessarily because they possess the capacity to achieve their "intended" effect. Principled antitrust enforcement must rely on evidence of actual economic effect, rather than inherently misleading characterizations of business conduct.
How to Cite
47 Ariz. L. Rev. 609 (2005)
1
Views
1
Downloads