Ojay Corp, A-C, Inc

Ojay Corp., A-C, Inc., and Kato Co. are competitors in the production and sale of knives. A year ago, the three firms agreed to share pricing information with each other on a periodic basis. As a result of this agreed sharing of information, the three companies regularly charge the same prices, including a minimum price that none of the three goes below and a maximum price that none of the three goes above. A fourth producer of knives, Bronco Co., the plaintiff in a Sherman Act Section 1 files a lawsuit against Ojay, A-C, and Kato. Bronco claims in the lawsuit that the foregoing facts constituted price-fixing and Bronco suffered direct antitrust injury as a result. Assuming that Bronco is a proper plaintiff, which of the following is an accurate analysis under current antitrust law?

A) Even if the defendants were involved only in conscious parallelism concerning pricing policies, they will be held liable under Section 1 because their behavior caused harm to the plaintiff.
B) If the court believes that the evidence demonstrates an agreement to fix prices, it will hold the defendants liable under Section 1 regardless of the business justifications for their agreement.
C) The defendants cannot be held liable under Section 1, because the facts indicate that they agreed to share pricing information without agreeing to fix prices or making any agreement to that effect.
D) The defendants should succeed with an argument that they are not liable for any fixing of maximum prices, because any such price-fixing would have finally benefited consumers.