The world of electronic commerce has revolutionized retailing and marketing. Electronic commerce has not only created a new marketplace but also greatly reduced traditional market borders and increased the opportunities for competition. In this article, the author addresses how electronic commerce has changed the competitive retailing marketplace and how antitrust enforcers face the challenge of ensuring that competition is not stifled in these new markets. He discusses the application of traditional antitrust analysis to the new competitive issues in electronic commerce.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
The Advertising Checking Bureau Inc. (1987), 109 F.T.C. 146 (order modification).
2.
AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland (2000), 216 F.3d 871 (9th Cir.).
3.
BakerDonald I. (1986), “Government Enforcement of Section Two,”Notre Dame Law Review, 61(5), 898–927.
4.
BaltoDavid A. (1997), “The Murky World of Network Mergers: Searching for the Opportunities for Network Competition,”Antitrust Bulletin, 42(Winter), 793–850.
5.
BaltoDavid A. (1998), “Cooperating to Compete: Antitrust Analysis of Health Care Joint Ventures,”St. Louis University Law Journal, 42(Winter), 191–241.
6.
Brown Shoe Co. v. United States (1962), 370 U.S. 294, 320.
7.
Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp. (1988), 485 U.S. 717.
DurhamMichael (1999), Prepared Testimony Before the U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, High-Tech Summit, (June 15).
12.
Fair Allocation System Inc. (1998a), C-3832 (October 31) (consent order).
13.
Fair Allocation System Inc. (1998b), C-3832 (October 31) (complaint), ¶ 2.
14.
Federal Trade Commission (1987), Statement of Policy Regarding Price Restrictions in Cooperative Advertising Programs—Rescission, 6 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 39,057 (May 21).
15.
Federal Trade Commission (1999), “Internet Mall Promoters Settle FTC Charges: Earnings Claims for Internet-Based Businesses Were False,” news release (April 15), (accessed July 25, 2000), [available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1999/9904/imall1.htm].
16.
Federal Trade Commission and United States Department of Justice (2000), “Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors,” 4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) ¶13,160.
17.
Federal Trade Commission v. Staples Inc. (1997), 970 F.Supp. 1066 (D.D.C.).
18.
Golf City Inc. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co. (1977), 555 F.2d 426 (5th Cir.).
19.
GoodmanPeter S. (1999), “GTE Files Suit over Internet Access,”Washington Post, (October 26), E1.
20.
GTE New Media Services Inc. v. Ameritech Corp. (1998), 21 F.Supp. 2d 27, 44 (D.D.C.).
21.
GTE Sylvania Inc. v. Continental TV Inc. (1977), 433 U.S. 36.
22.
ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. IBM (1978), 458 F.Supp. 423 (N.D. Cal.).
KatzMichael, and ShapiroCarl (1985), “Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility,”American Economic Review, 75(3), 424–40.
26.
KennardWilliam E. (1999), Remarks Before the Federal Communications Bar, San Francisco, (July 20), 3.
27.
LemleyMark A. (1996), “Antitrust and the Internet Standardization Problem,”Connecticut Law Review, 28(4), 1041–94.
28.
Memorex Corp. v. IBM (1980), 636 F.2d 118 (9th Cir.).
29.
Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp. (1984), 466 U.S. 994.
30.
National Association of College Bookstores v. Cambridge University Press (1997), 990 F.Supp. 245 (S.D.N.Y.).
31.
New England Juvenile Retailer's Association (1995), 119 F.T.C. 79 (consent order).
32.
New York v. Microsoft Corp. (1998), Civ. Ac. No. 98-1233 (D.D.C. May 18) (complaint).
33.
Northwest Wholesale Stationers Inc. v. Pacific Stationery & Printing Co. (1985), 472 U.S. 284.
34.
O.S.C. Corp. v. Apple Computer Inc. (1986), 792 F.2d 1464 (9th Cir.).
35.
PirainoThomas A.Jr., (1995), “The Antitrust Analysis of Network Joint Ventures,”Hastings Law Journal, 47(November), 5–59.
36.
Pitofsky, Robert (1999), “Antitrust Analysis in High-Tech Industries: A 19th Century Discipline Addresses 21st Century Problems,” prepared remarks before the American Bar Association, Antitrust Section, Antitrust Issues in High-Tech Industries Workshop, (February 25), 1.
37.
ReMax International Inc. v. Realty One Inc. (2000), 173 F.3d 995 (6th Cir.), pet. for cert. filed (Aug. 17).
38.
RubenfeldDaniel (2000), “The Primestar Acquisition of the News Corp./MCI Direct Broadcast Satellite Assets,”Review of Industrial Organization, 16, 193–209.
39.
State of New York v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. (1990), 1990–1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 69,016 (S.D.N.Y.).
40.
State Oil Co. v. Khan (1997), 522 U.S. 3.
41.
SteuerRichard M. (1998), “Retailing on the Internet,”Antitrust, 12(3), 50–52.
42.
Time Warner Inc. (1997), 123 F.T.C. 171 (consent order).
43.
Toys “R” Us Inc. (1998), Dkt. No. 9278 (October 14), aff'd, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 18304 (7th Cir. August 8).
44.
United States Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission (1992), Horizontal Merger Guidelines, (April 2), reprinted in 4 (CCH) Trade Reg. Rep. ¶ 13,104.
45.
United States v. Colgate Co. (1919), 250 U.S. 300.
46.
United States v. Electronic Payments Services Inc. (1994a), No. 94–208 (D. Del. April 21).
47.
United States v. Electronic Payments Services Inc. (1994b), 59 Fed. Reg., 24711(May 12).
48.
United States v. General Motors Corp. (1966), 384 U.S. 127.
49.
United States v. Microsoft Corp (1998a), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14231, at 61.
50.
United States v. Microsoft Corp (1998b), Civ. Ac. No. 98–1232 (D.D.C. May 18) (complaint).
51.
United States v. Primestar (1999), Civ. No. 1:98CV01193(JLG) (complaint).
52.
United States v. Primestar Partners L.P. (1993), 58 Fed. Reg., 33944 (June 22) (proposed final judgment and competitive impact statement).
53.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. American Drugs Inc. (1995), 319 Ark. 214 (S.C. Ark.).
54.
WarnerMelanie (1998), “Can Tupperware Keep a Lid on the Web?”Fortune, (January 12), 144.
