Spanish Broadcasting (SB) claimed that larger radio company Hispanic Broadcasting (HB) worked with its part owner,Clear Channel,the largest radio network in the U.S.to limit its ability to compete in the market by hiring away SB employees and making it difficult for SB to enter the Spanish-language radio market in new cities.SB sued HB and Clear for monopolization.The court found that:
A) Clear and HB could not be proven to have conspired together,so although SB appeared to suffer damage,it could not prove intent to monopolize
B) SB demonstrated that its losses were likely due to a conspiracy by HB and Clear to reduce its competitive ability,so it may be awarded treble damages for its losses
C) SB provided adequate evidence that its share of the Spanish-language radio market was injured by predatory behavior,so its claim against HB and Clear could proceed
D) HB and Clear controlled more than 25 percent of the radio market,thereby violating the Justice Department limit on market share control;Clear would have to sell its share of HB
E) none of the other choices
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q87: In Spanish Broadcasting v.Clear Channel,where Spanish sued
Q186: To recover damages under antitrust law, plaintiffs
Q205: A merger occurs when:
A) two or more
Q207: When a court considers the net effect
Q219: Which of the following is a downside
Q220: A(n) _ involves two or more firms
Q234: When two firms merge, they must notify
Q236: When two firms merge, they must notify
Q237: When two firms merge, they must notify
Q238: In Standard Oil v. U.S., the federal
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents