For Your Data Ftc V. Staples, Inc. Representative Brief Summary

FTC v. Staples, Inc. representative brief summary
970 F.Supp. 1066 (1997)
CASE FACTS
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sought a preliminary injunction against Staples to foreclose it from merging amongst Office Depot, based upon a marketplace of component supplies sold through component superstores (which had exclusively ane other competitor, OfficeMax); the merging firms considered the marketplace to last exactly component supplies (within which they had a combined 5.5% marketplace share). The relevant geographic marketplace were cities inside the United States.

DISCUSSION
The Court constitute that sale of component supplies through component superstores was a distinct submarket inside the “practical indicia” suggested past times Brown Shoe together with granted the preliminary injunction.

• Despite the presence of smaller component provide retailers together with Best Buys located inwards all cities where in that location were no competing superstores, Staples’ prices inwards those cities were significantly higher than inwards cities that had at to the lowest degree ane other component superstore.
• Evidence showed that defendants changed their toll zones when faced amongst the entrance of roughly other superstore, but non other retailers.
• The defendants suggested that sure as shooting cities are only to a greater extent than expensive environments inwards which to sell component supplies, due to zoning, transportation costs, congestion, together with existent estate costs, but these differences were non referenced together with tracked inwards the defendant's accounting documents.

Analysis together with Notes

• The economists for each side had unlike theories: the FTC saw a 7% to 8% toll differential when superstores change, but the defendants’ experts exclusively saw a 1% difference. The economists theories were essentially a fighting over technical details.
• The Court essentially ignored the proffer of unilateral effects together with used the pricing data to define a submarket, although the representative could last viewed every bit an number of straight testify of marketplace ability (price comparisons across cities) versus circumstantial testify of marketplace ability (a fighting over the market).
• The narrow market/submarket approach oftentimes looks similar the marketplace has been only concocted to invoke the structural presumption.

Using the unilateral effects approach avoids the fighting over submarkets, but too has roughly disadvantages:

• It loses the structural presumption.
• Defendants tin fighting that in that location are to a greater extent than competitors inwards the market.
• It sets upwardly a competition betwixt the straight together with indirect evidence.
• Potentially allows the defendants to invoke the condom harbor inwards the guidelines.
  
  See FTC v. Staples on Google Scholar

Share this post