Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co. could have been influential in three ways. First, the Court directly addressed the standard for predatory buying and, consequently, could have influenced the likelihood antitrust plaintiffs will rely on that theory. Second, its express recognition of the similarities between the buying and selling sides of markets could have encourage increased reliance on monopsony-based theories of liability. Finally, the decision could have created the impetus for refining the analysis of a number of issues when they arise in monopsony contexts. These include monopsony tying, the use of monopsony power to gain power on the selling side of markets, as well as standing and antitrust injury. This study finds that its impact has been to discourage use of the predatory buying theory and, perhaps, of monopsony theories generally. Interestingly, it has encouraged defendants to claim plaintiffs are making Weyerhaeser-like claims in hopes of being granted a dismissal.
