Abstract
We take an economic perspective to analyze the recurring criticisms of the Robinson-Patman Act as being anticompetitive or inefficient. We determine that the legislative history of the Act identifies economically rational objectives that are consistent with the efficiency concerns of so-called modern antitrust law. Further, we reject (as unnecessary and inconsistent with the Act’s clear goals and legislative intent) recent attempts to narrow the Act’s applications through judicial interpretation of provisions such as the cost justification defense, the “like grade and quality” requirement, and the competitive injury element.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.