Question 1

OPEC,the oil cartel,has been held not to violate the antitrust laws because of the
power-buyer defense.

Accepted Answer

The power-buyer defense is not applicable in the case of OPEC as it is not a single buyer but a group of oil-producing countries that work together to control oil prices. OPEC has been accused of violating antitrust laws, but its immunity from such laws has been debated and varies by country.

Question 2

Price fixing is generally considered to be the worst violation of antitrust law.

Accepted Answer

Price fixing involves competitors conspiring to set prices at an artificially high level, which harms consumers and stifles competition. This behavior is generally viewed as the most serious violation of antitrust law.

Question 3

In U.S.v.Trenton Potteries,the Supreme Court held that the defendants' price-fixing
agreements were legal under a rule of reason analysis because they resulted in lower prices for consumers.

Accepted Answer

In U.S. v. Trenton Potteries, the Supreme Court held that the defendants' price-fixing agreements were illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act, as they were found to have unreasonably restrained trade and suppressed competition. The Court did not find that the lower prices for consumers resulting from the price-fixing agreements were a valid justification under the rule of reason analysis.

Question 4

The antitrust standards of the European Union and the U.S.have been growing
further apart in such things as exclusive dealing and territorial restrictions.

Accepted Answer

The answer of The antitrust standards of the European Union...

Question 5

EU antitrust law applies to U.S.businesses that do business in Europe.

Accepted Answer

EU antitrust law applies to any business, regardless of nationality, that has operations, customers, or business dealings within the European Union. This includes U.S. businesses that operate in Europe.

Question 6

In general,price fixing among competitors is per se illegal.

Accepted Answer

Price fixing among competitors is considered a violation of antitrust laws and is therefore illegal. There are few exceptions where price fixing is legal, such as if it is part of a larger collaboration or joint venture where pricing is agreed upon in a non-collusive way.

Question 7

Since 1942,the Supreme Court has held exchanges of information are per se legal
because they promote the efficient operation of the market.

Accepted Answer

Since 1942, the Supreme Court has not held that exchanges of information are per se legal; rather, it has scrutinized such exchanges under antitrust laws, particularly concerned with how they might restrict competition or lead to price fixing.

Question 8

In Freeman v.San Diego Assn.of Realtors the court held that for the Multiple Listing
services to join services together and to set prices together was illegal per se.

Accepted Answer

The court in Freeman v. San Diego Assn. of Realtors held that the act of Multiple Listing services joining together and setting prices together was illegal per se. This means that it was inherently anticompetitive and therefore illegal without any need for further analysis.

Question 9

A horizontal restraint of trade occurs when the businesses involved are on the same
level of operation and work together to limit competition.

Accepted Answer

A horizontal restraint of trade occurs when businesses at the same level of operation, such as competitors, work together to limit competition. This can include price-fixing, market-sharing, and other forms of collusion.

Question 10

The Supreme Court held it to be legal,under a rule of reason in the Broadcast Music
case,for the rights to play copyrighted music to be sold under a blanket licensing
agreement that prevented negotiation over fees.

Accepted Answer

The statement accurately reflects the Supreme Court's ruling in the Broadcast Music case.

Question 11

Generally,it is legal to share price information,so long as it is done openly.

Accepted Answer

Sharing price information openly is legal, but insider trading and manipulation of prices are illegal.

Question 12

In Freeman v.San Diego Assn.of Realtors the court held that for the Multiple Listing
Services to set prices together was permissible under a rule of reason because the quality of service increased substantially because of the cooperation.

Accepted Answer

The court in Freeman v. San Diego Assn. of Realtors did not hold that setting prices together was permissible under the rule of reason. Instead, it found that such conduct was a per se violation of antitrust laws, as it constituted price-fixing among competitors.

Question 13

The Supreme Court has held horizontal price fixing to be per se illegal in every
antitrust case.

Accepted Answer

The answer of The Supreme Court has held horizontal price...

Question 14

In Todd v.Exxon Corp.the court held that a group of oil companies could share
salary information because it was public information that was available to all parties.

Accepted Answer

In Todd v. Exxon Corp., the court held that sharing salary information among competitors could be considered an antitrust violation, even if the information was publicly available. The court found that the potential harm to competition outweighed any pro-competitive benefits of sharing such information.

Question 15

The Supreme Court has held the sharing of price information to be a per se violation
of the Sherman Act.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has not held the sharing of price information to be a per se violation of the Sherman Act. The legality of sharing price information between competitors depends on the context and the potential anti-competitive effects it may have.

Question 16

In U.S.v.Trenton Potteries,a group of sanitary potters successfully argued that
reasonable price-fixing agreements were legal.

Accepted Answer

In U.S. v. Trenton Potteries, the Supreme Court ruled that price-fixing agreements among competitors, even those made with the intention of stabilizing prices, were illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The case established the concept of "conscious parallelism," where companies may independently come to similar pricing decisions without direct communication, but still may be in violation of antitrust laws. Therefore, the statement that reasonable price-fixing agreements were legal is false.

Question 17

In Freeman v.San Diego Assn.of Realtors the court held that for the Multiple Listing
Services to join services together and to set prices together was illegal under a rule of reason analysis because the defendant failed to show how it helped the market.

Accepted Answer

The answer of In Freeman v.San Diego Assn.of Realtors the...

Question 18

In U.S.v.United States Gypsum Co. ,involving the sharing of price information by
members of an industry with each other,the Supreme Court held that exchanges of information are per se illegal.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court did not hold that exchanges of information are per se illegal in U.S. v. United States Gypsum Co. Instead, they stated that the legality of the exchange depended on the specific circumstances and effects on competition.

Question 19

An example of a horizontal restraint of trade is a cartel,such as OPEC.

Accepted Answer

A cartel, such as OPEC, is an example of a horizontal restraint of trade because it involves multiple competitors coming together to limit output and raise prices in order to increase their profits. This is considered anticompetitive behavior and is illegal under antitrust laws.

Question 20

The antitrust standards of the European Union and the U.S.are growing closer
together.

Accepted Answer

In recent years, there has been increasing collaboration and coordination between the European Union and the U.S. in antitrust enforcement, leading to closer alignment in their standards and approaches.

Quiz 20: Antitrust Law

OPEC,the oil cartel,has been held not to violate the antitrust laws because of the power-buyer defense.

Price fixing is generally considered to be the worst violation of antitrust law.

In U.S.v.Trenton Potteries,the Supreme Court held that the defendants' price-fixing agreements were legal under a rule of reason analysis because they resulted in lower prices for consumers.

The antitrust standards of the European Union and the U.S.have been growing further apart in such things as exclusive dealing and territorial restrictions.

EU antitrust law applies to U.S.businesses that do business in Europe.

In general,price fixing among competitors is per se illegal.

Since 1942,the Supreme Court has held exchanges of information are per se legal because they promote the efficient operation of the market.

In Freeman v.San Diego Assn.of Realtors the court held that for the Multiple Listing services to join services together and to set prices together was illegal per se.

A horizontal restraint of trade occurs when the businesses involved are on the same level of operation and work together to limit competition.

The Supreme Court held it to be legal,under a rule of reason in the Broadcast Music case,for the rights to play copyrighted music to be sold under a blanket licensing agreement that prevented negotiation over fees.

Generally,it is legal to share price information,so long as it is done openly.

In Freeman v.San Diego Assn.of Realtors the court held that for the Multiple Listing Services to set prices together was permissible under a rule of reason because the quality of service increased substantially because of the cooperation.

The Supreme Court has held horizontal price fixing to be per se illegal in every antitrust case.

In Todd v.Exxon Corp.the court held that a group of oil companies could share salary information because it was public information that was available to all parties.

The Supreme Court has held the sharing of price information to be a per se violation of the Sherman Act.

In U.S.v.Trenton Potteries,a group of sanitary potters successfully argued that reasonable price-fixing agreements were legal.

In Freeman v.San Diego Assn.of Realtors the court held that for the Multiple Listing Services to join services together and to set prices together was illegal under a rule of reason analysis because the defendant failed to show how it helped the market.

In U.S.v.United States Gypsum Co. ,involving the sharing of price information by members of an industry with each other,the Supreme Court held that exchanges of information are per se illegal.

An example of a horizontal restraint of trade is a cartel,such as OPEC.

The antitrust standards of the European Union and the U.S.are growing closer together.