Abstract
The recent Supreme Court decision in Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services affirms two major premises. First, a court may find a seller or combination of sellers has market power in secondary markets (aftermarkets) into which their consumers are practically "locked" by an original purchasing decision where (1) market imperfections, including lack of information, precluded fully informed consumer choice at the time of the original purchase; and (2) the cost or practical availability of "switching" to an alternative primary product eliminates price or service sensitivity. Second, a seller's refusal to deal or to allow consumers to deal with competitors in a secondary market may be monopolistic as an unreasonable business practice, particularly if the refusal results in price stabilization, service limitations, or the elimination of a competitive consumer-provider market. In certain respects, Kodak merely reaffirmed Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. But more importantly Kodak also affirmed the comparative significance of developing a trial record versus relying upon economic theory to assess the competitive consequences of and motives for business behavior.
Recommended Citation
Ponsoldt, James F.
(1995)
"Refusals to Deal in "Locked-in"
Health Care Markets Under Section 2 of
the Sherman Act After Eastman Kodak Co.
v. Image Technical Services,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1995:
No.
2, Article 9.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1995/iss2/9