'Obvious' Consumer Harm in Antitrust Policy: The Chicago School, the Post-Chicago School, and the Courts

Abstract

This book chapter, published in 2002, argues that courts decide antitrust cases based mainly on their perception of the “obvious” effects of the practices at issue on consumers. Courts must rely on both theory and evidence in resolving antitrust cases, but the persuasiveness of theoretical predictions depends in large part on the determinacy of their implications for consumers. Theories of liability are often too restrictive in their assumptions and markets are often too complex to allow confident predictions that a practice that obviously benefits consumers in the short run will ultimately hurt them in the long run, or vice versa.