Hubbry Logo
Tying (commerce)Tying (commerce)Main
Open search
Tying (commerce)
Community hub
Tying (commerce)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Tying (commerce)
Tying (commerce)
Tying (commerce)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Competition law
Basic concepts
Anti-competitive practices
Competition regulators

Tying (informally, product tying) is the practice of selling one product or service as a mandatory addition to the purchase of a different product or service. In legal terms, a tying sale makes the sale of one good (the tying good) to the de facto customer (or de jure customer) conditional on the purchase of a second distinctive good (the tied good). Tying is often illegal when the products are not naturally related. It is related to but distinct from freebie marketing, a common (and legal) method of giving away (or selling at a substantial discount) one item to ensure a continual flow of sales of another related item.

Some kinds of tying, especially by contract, have historically been regarded as anti-competitive practices. The basic idea is that consumers are harmed by being forced to buy an undesired good (the tied good) in order to purchase a good they actually want (the tying good), and so would prefer that the goods be sold separately. The company doing this bundling may have a significantly large market share so that it may impose the tie on consumers, despite the forces of market competition. The tie may also harm other companies in the market for the tied good, or who sell only single components.

One effect of tying can be that low quality products achieve a higher market share than would otherwise be the case.

Tying may also be a form of price discrimination: people who use more razor blades, for example, pay more than those who just need a one-time shave. Though this may improve overall welfare, by giving more consumers access to the market, such price discrimination can also transfer consumer surpluses to the producer. Tying may also be used with or in place of patents or copyrights to help protect entry into a market, discouraging innovation.

Tying is often used when the supplier makes one product that is critical to many customers. By threatening to withhold that key product unless others are also purchased, the supplier can increase sales of less necessary products.

In the United States, most states have laws against tying, which are enforced by state governments. In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice enforces federal laws against tying through its Antitrust Division.

Types

[edit]

Horizontal tying is the practice of requiring consumers to pay for an unrelated product or service together with the desired one.[1] A hypothetical example would be for Bic to sell its pens only with Bic lighters. (However, offering a limited free item with another purchase as a promotion by a company does not constitute horizontal tying.[citation needed])

Vertical tying is the practice of requiring customers to purchase related products or services together, from the same company.[1] For example, a company might mandate that its automobiles could only be serviced by its own dealers. In an effort to curb this, many jurisdictions require that warranties not be voided by outside servicing; for example, see the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in the United States.

In United States law

[edit]

Certain tying arrangements are illegal in the United States under both the Sherman Antitrust Act,[2] and Section 3 of the Clayton Act.[3] A tying arrangement is defined as "an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product, or at least agrees he will not purchase the product from any other supplier."[4] Tying may be the action of several companies as well as the work of just one firm. Success on a tying claim typically requires proof of four elements: (1) two separate products or services are involved; (2) the purchase of the tying product is conditioned on the additional purchase of the tied product; (3) the seller has sufficient market power in the market for the tying product; (4) a not insubstantial amount of interstate commerce in the tied product market is affected.[5]

For at least three decades, the Supreme Court defined the required "economic power" to include just about any departure from perfect competition, going so far as to hold that possession of a copyright or even the existence of a tie itself gave rise to a presumption of economic power.[6] The Supreme Court has since held that a plaintiff must establish the sort of market power necessary for other antitrust violations in order to prove sufficient "economic power" necessary to establish a per se tie.[7] More recently, the Court has eliminated any presumption of market power based solely on the fact that the tying product is patented or copyrighted.[8]

In recent years, changing business practices surrounding new technologies have put the legality of tying arrangements to the test. Although the Supreme Court still considers some tying arrangements as per se illegal, the Court actually uses a rule-of-reason analysis, requiring an analysis of foreclosure effects and an affirmative defense of efficiency justifications.[9]

Apple products

[edit]
Main article: History of iPhone § Exclusivity tying of iPhone to AT&T

The tying of Apple products is an example of commercial tying that has caused recent controversy. When Apple initially released the iPhone on June 29, 2007,[10] it was sold exclusively with AT&T (formerly Cingular) contracts in the United States.[11] To enforce this exclusivity, Apple employed a type of software lock that ensured the phone would not work on any network besides AT&T's.[12] Related to the concept of bricking, any user who tried to unlock or otherwise tamper with the locking software ran the risk of rendering their iPhone permanently inoperable.[12] This caused complaints among many consumers, as they were forced to pay an additional early termination fee of $175 if they wanted to unlock the device safely for use on a different carrier.[13] Other companies such as Google complained that tying encourages a more closed-access-based wireless service.[13][failed verification] Many questioned the legality of the arrangement,[14] and in October 2007 a class-action lawsuit was filed against Apple, claiming that its exclusive agreement with AT&T violates California antitrust law.[15] The suit was filed by the Law Office of Damian R. Fernandez on behalf of California resident Timothy P. Smith,[15] and ultimately sought to have an injunction issued against Apple to prevent it from selling iPhones with any kind of software lock.[16]

In July 2010, federal regulators clarified the issue when they determined it was lawful to unlock (or in other terms, "jail break") the iPhone, declaring that there was no basis for copyright law to assist Apple in protecting its restrictive business model.[17] Jail breaking is removing operating system or hardware restrictions imposed on an iPhone (or other device). If done successfully, this allows one to run any application on the phone they choose, including applications not authorized by Apple.[17] Apple told regulators that modifying the iPhone operating system leads to the creation of an infringing derivative work that is protected by copyright law. This means that the license on the operating system forbids software modification.[17] However, regulators agreed that modifying an iPhone's firmware/operating system to enable it to run an application that Apple has not approved is undoubtedly fair use.[17]

Microsoft products

[edit]

Another prominent case involving a tying claim was United States v. Microsoft.[18] By some accounts, Microsoft ties together Microsoft Windows, Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Outlook Express and Microsoft Office. The United States claimed that the bundling of Internet Explorer (IE) to sales of Windows 98, making IE difficult to remove from Windows 98 (e.g., not putting it on the "Remove Programs" list), and designing Windows 98 to work "unpleasantly" with Netscape Navigator constituted an illegal tying of Windows 98 and IE.[19] Microsoft's counterargument was that a web browser and a mail reader are simply part of an operating system, included with other personal computer operating systems, and the integration of the products was technologically justified. Just as the definition of a car has changed to include things that used to be separate products, such as speedometers and radios, Microsoft claimed the definition of an operating system has changed to include their formerly separate products. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected Microsoft's claim that Internet Explorer was simply one facet of its operating system, but the court held that the tie between Windows and Internet Explorer should be analyzed deferentially under the Rule of Reason.[18] The U.S. government claim settled before reaching final resolution.

As to the tying of Office, parallel cases against Microsoft brought by State Attorneys General included a claim for harm in the market for office productivity applications.[20] The Attorneys General abandoned this claim when filing an amended complaint. The claim was revived by Novell where they alleged that manufacturers of computers ("OEMs") were charged less for their Windows bulk purchases if they agreed to bundle Office with every PC sold than if they gave computer purchasers the choice whether or not to buy Office along with their machines—making their computer prices less competitive in the market. The Novell litigation has since settled.[21]

Microsoft has also tied its software to the third-party Android mobile operating system, by requiring manufacturers that license patents it claims covers the OS and smartphones to ship Microsoft Office Mobile and Skype applications on the devices.[22][23]

Anti-tying provision of the Bank Holding Company Act

[edit]

In 1970, Congress enacted section 106 of the Bank Holding Company Act Amendments of 1970 (BHCA), the anti-tying provision, which is codified at 12 U.S.C. § 1972. The statute was designed to prevent banks, whether large or small, state or federal, from imposing anticompetitive conditions on their customers. Tying is an antitrust violation, but the Sherman and Clayton Acts did not adequately protect borrowers from being required to accept conditions to loans issued by banks, and section 106 was specifically designed to apply to and remedy such bank misconduct.

Banks are allowed to take measures to protect their loans and to safeguard the value of their investments, such as requiring security or guaranties from borrowers. The statute exempts so-called “traditional banking practices” from its per se illegality, and thus its purpose is not so much to limit banks' lending practices, as it is to ensure that the practices used are fair and competitive. A majority of claims brought under the BHCA are denied. Banks still have quite a bit of leeway in fashioning loan agreements, but when a bank clearly steps over the bounds of propriety, the plaintiff is compensated with treble damages.

At least four regulatory agencies including the Federal Reserve Board oversee the activities of banks, their holding companies, and other related depository institutions. While each type of depository institution has a “primary regulator”, the nation's “dual banking” system allows concurrent jurisdiction among the different regulatory agencies. With respect to the anti-tying provision, the Fed takes the preeminent role in relation to the other financial institution regulatory agencies, which reflects that it was considered the least biased (in favor of banks) of the regulatory agencies when section 106 was enacted.[24]

In European Law

[edit]

Tying is the "practice of a supplier of one product, the tying product, requiring a buyer also to buy a second product, the tied product".[25] The tying of a product can take various forms,[26] that of contractual tying[27] where a contract binds the buyer to purchase both products together, refusal to supply until the buyer agrees to purchase both products, withdrawal or withholding of a guarantee where the dominant seller will not provide the benefit of guarantee until the seller accepts to purchase that party's product,[28] technical tying occurs when the products of the dominant party are physically integrated and making impossible to buy the one without the other[29] and bundling where two products are sold in the same package with one price. These practises are prohibited under Article 101(1)(e) and Article 102(2)(d) and may amount to an infringement of the statute if other conditions are satisfied. However, it is noteworthy that the Court is willing to find an infringement beyond those listed in Article 102(2)(d), see Tetra Pak v Commission.[30]

Enforcement under European law

[edit]

The Guidance on Article 102 Enforcement Priorities sets out in which circumstances it will be appropriate taking actions against tying practices. First, it must be established whether the accused undertaking has a dominant position in the tying or tied product market.[31] Subsequently, the next step is to determine whether the dominant undertaking tied two distinct products. This is important as two identical products cannot be considered tied under Article 102(2)(d) formulation that states products will be considered tied if they have no connects ‘by their nature or commercial usage’. This arises problems in the legal definition of what will amount to tying in scenarios of selling cars with tires or selling a car with a radio. Hence, the Commission provides guidance on this issue by citing the judgement in Microsoft[29] and states that "two products are distinct if, in the absence of tying or bundling, a substantial number of customers would purchase or would have purchased the tying product without also buying the tied product from the same supplier, thereby allowing stand-alone production for both the tying and the tied product".[32] Next issue is whether the customer was coerced to purchase both the tying and the tied products as Article 102(2)(d) suggests: ‘making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations’. In situations of contractual stipulation, it is clear that the test will be satisfied;[33] for an example of a non-contractual tying see Microsoft.[34] Furthermore, for an undertaking to be deemed anti-competitive is whether the tie is capable of having foreclosure effect.[35] Some examples of tying practices having an anti-competitive foreclosure effect in case law are the IBM,[36] Eurofix-Bauco v Hilti,[37] Telemarketing v CLT,[38] British Sugar[39] and Microsoft.[29] Subsequently, the defence available for the dominant undertaking is that it can provide that tying is objectively justified or enhances efficiency and the commission is willing to consider claims that are tying may result in economic efficiency in production or distribution that will bring benefit to the consumers.[40]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Tying (commerce)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Tying in commerce is a sales practice in which a seller conditions the availability of a desired product or service—the tying product—upon the buyer's agreement to also purchase a separate, often unwanted product or service—the tied product. This arrangement leverages the seller's market power in the tying product to influence demand in the tied market. Under U.S. antitrust law, tying is governed primarily by Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act, which prohibit contracts or sales conditions that substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. While tying arrangements can facilitate efficiencies such as reduced transaction costs, , or metering usage of , they raise concerns when they foreclose competition in the tied without countervailing benefits to . Courts traditionally apply a per se illegality rule if the seller possesses sufficient in the tying product, a not insubstantial volume of in the tied product is affected, and the products are distinct, though modern economic analysis increasingly favors a rule-of-reason approach emphasizing actual anticompetitive harms over presumptive illegality. and theoretical models indicate that tying is rarely anticompetitive in practice, often serving legitimate business purposes like lowering production costs or enhancing consumer convenience, challenging earlier doctrinal assumptions rooted in less rigorous economic understanding. Historically, landmark cases such as United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. United States (1922), the first federal tying violation, and International Business Machines Corp. v. United States (1936), which addressed punched-card tabulating machines, established precedents for condemning arrangements that extended monopoly power across markets. Controversies persist over the doctrine's application, particularly in technology sectors where bundling innovations blur lines between tying and efficient integration, prompting calls for antitrust modernization to align enforcement with causal evidence of harm rather than structural presumptions.

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Concept and Examples

A tying arrangement in commerce occurs when a seller conditions the sale or lease of a desired product, termed the tying product, on the buyer's agreement to purchase or lease a separate tied product from the same seller, or to refrain from acquiring the tied product from competitors. This practice distinguishes itself by involving coercion over distinct goods or services, often leveraging the seller's economic power in the tying market to extend influence into the tied market, potentially foreclosing competition. For antitrust scrutiny, key elements include the separability of the two products, sufficient market power in the tying product to force the unwanted purchase, and a not insubstantial impact on commerce in the tied product market. Illustrative examples abound in durable goods paired with consumables. A manufacturer of printers might condition the sale of printing hardware on the exclusive purchase of its proprietary ink cartridges, thereby directing demand away from rival ink suppliers despite potentially superior alternatives. Similarly, in historical leasing practices, producers of industrial machinery, such as repair , required lessees to source replacement parts exclusively from them, limiting competitive entry into the parts aftermarket. These arrangements can meter usage or ensure quality but raise concerns when they suppress rivalry without offsetting efficiencies. In software contexts, tying has manifested as operating systems bundled with specific applications. For instance, conditioned access to its Windows operating system on the inclusion of browser, a practice challenged for extending dominance from the OS market into web browsing, where it arguably stifled and in browsers. Such cases highlight how tying can leverage installed bases—where switching costs deter users from alternatives—to entrench positions across markets. Empirical patterns show tying prevalent in markets with complementary products, like hardware and software or equipment and inputs, but legality hinges on whether harms outweigh pro-competitive metering or .

Distinction from Bundling and Integration

Tying arrangements in commerce involve a seller conditioning the sale or lease of a tying product upon the buyer's agreement to purchase or use a separate tied product from the seller, thereby restricting buyer choice and potentially leveraging market power from the tying product into the tied product's market. This requires the existence of two distinct products, as antitrust scrutiny under doctrines like those in Section 1 of the Sherman Act or Section 3 of the Clayton Act hinges on whether customers are coerced into buying the tied item without the option for standalone purchase. In contrast, bundling refers to offering multiple products together at a combined , often at a discount relative to separate purchases, without necessarily prohibiting individual ; pure bundling denies standalone options, resembling tying but lacking the explicit conditioning or element central to tying claims. Mixed bundling permits separate purchases alongside the package deal, promoting efficiencies such as reduced transaction costs or inventory management, and is generally evaluated under a rule-of-reason analysis rather than per se illegality, as it does not inherently foreclose in the same coercive manner as tying. Empirical evidence from competitive markets shows bundling often arises from cost savings or consumer valuation alignment, not monopoly extension, distinguishing it from tying's focus on leveraging dominance. Product integration, particularly technological integration, differs by merging functionalities into a single product rather than treating them as separable items subject to conditioning; for instance, a feature like a browser into an operating may constitute integration if it enhances or without separate product markets for the components. Courts have distinguished this from tying by requiring proof of two separate products—a threshold not met in true integration, where antitrust avoids condemning pro-competitive design choices, as seen in cases rejecting per se rules for software bundling deemed integrated. This separation ensures tying doctrine targets only arrangements that artificially extend , not organic product development driven by engineering or consumer demand.

Economic Perspectives

Pro-Competitive Rationales

Tying arrangements can achieve production efficiencies by exploiting and scope, such as combined manufacturing processes that reduce factory complexity and overall costs, which firms may pass on to consumers via lower prices. Distribution and marketing savings also arise, as seen in software bundling that minimizes shipment expenses or media packages like triple-play services that streamline delivery infrastructure. These cost reductions promote by enabling firms to offer more attractive pricing in tied product markets without requiring in the tying good. A key pro-competitive mechanism is metering demand for durable goods with low marginal costs but variable usage intensity, allowing sellers to price based on actual consumption through tied variable inputs. The classic illustration involves International Business Machines Corporation's (IBM) tabulating machines in the mid-20th century, where tying proprietary punched cards to machine leases enabled usage-based pricing akin to rental fees, potentially expanding output and consumer access compared to flat-fee alternatives that might deter low-intensity users. This form of , rooted in economic theory from scholars like , extracts surplus efficiently without harming rivalry in the primary market. Tying further supports quality control by ensuring compatibility between complementary products, preventing failures from mismatched components, as in electronics where integrated bundling avoids consumer assembly errors. It reduces transaction costs by simplifying consumer decisions, such as multisymptom cold medicines that combine pain relief and decongestants, sparing buyers from separate evaluations. Empirical observations in competitive sectors confirm these benefits: for example, CVS Pharmacy's bundled acetaminophen-pseudoephedrine remedies priced at $3.99 represent a 38% savings over separate purchases totaling $6.48, driven by packaging and shelf-space efficiencies. Similarly, RadioShack's $9.99 package of international electrical adapters yields 20% cost reductions compared to individual sales, while automakers like Ford reduced Taurus model options from 32-50 in 1986 to 3-13 by 2004, lowering fixed costs and enhancing market responsiveness. The ubiquity of such practices in rivalrous markets underscores their role in fostering innovation and variety without anticompetitive foreclosure.

Anticompetitive Risks

Tying arrangements present anticompetitive risks when a firm possessing substantial in the tying conditions its sale on the purchase of a distinct tied product, thereby leveraging dominance to impair rivalry in the tied market. This denies competitors access to customers captive to the tying product, hindering their ability to achieve and potentially forcing inefficient exit if fixed costs are significant and the foreclosed share is substantial. Economic theory identifies key conditions for such harm: typically exceeding 30% in the tying market, distinct product markets without single monopoly profit theorem applicability, and inability of rivals to replicate the tie effectively. Under these circumstances, tying can exclude equally efficient entrants, elevate prices above competitive levels, and stifle in the tied market, as rivals' profits fall below variable costs. Tying may also extend or entrench monopoly power by deterring entry into the tying market through control of complementary tied goods, or by facilitating exclusion in dynamic industries where network effects amplify foreclosure. For instance, in United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2001), the bundling of with Windows was found to foreclose browser rivals by leveraging the operating system's dominance, contributing to maintained monopoly rents. Empirical evidence of anticompetitive tying remains case-specific and limited, with demonstrated in scenarios like pharmaceutical firms tying drugs to monitoring services, blocking independent providers and raising costs without evident efficiencies. Historical precedents, dating to the 1917 Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., underscore risks of suppressing independent producers via patent-leveraged ties.

Empirical Studies and Evidence

Empirical analyses of tying arrangements, though limited in scope, predominantly draw from observations in competitive markets, where such practices are commonplace without evidence of reduced rivalry or consumer harm. In sectors like over-the-counter pharmaceuticals, firms frequently bundle pain relievers with decongestants, yielding measurable cost reductions in production and —such as economies from single-unit rather than separate items—while maintaining product variety through mixed bundling options. For example, a bundled Tylenol Sinus caplet retailed for approximately $5.99, compared to $8.58 for equivalent separate Tylenol and Sudafed purchases, representing a 30-38% advantage that enhanced consumer access and convenience without foreclosing competitors. Similar patterns in cold medicines underscore tying's role in lowering transaction costs and aligning supply with demand variability, supporting the view that these arrangements facilitate efficiencies rather than leverage . Studies of litigated tying cases further reveal that firms adopt these strategies for operational reasons, including , inventory simplification, and usage metering, rather than systematic exclusion of rivals. Econometric reviews of historical antitrust disputes indicate that anticompetitive occurs infrequently, with tying more often correlating with and cost savings that benefit end-users. In printer ink markets, where metering ties enable variable proportion usage tied to durable , empirical post-2006 have not demonstrated widespread welfare losses, as in aftermarkets persists despite initial presumptions of harm; the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of per se illegality in Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink aligned with this, emphasizing case-specific evidence over doctrinal assumptions. Overall, the sparse but consistent empirical record—primarily from settings—suggests tying rarely impairs or welfare when rivals remain viable, challenging stricter antitrust presumptions and favoring rule-of-reason evaluations that account for verifiable efficiencies. Theoretical models predict ambiguous effects in dominant firm scenarios, but real-world data, such as pharmaceutical bundling's and variety outcomes, tilt toward net positives absent substantial , informing doctrinal shifts away from per se prohibitions.

Historical Evolution

Origins in Early 20th-Century Cases

In Henry v. A. B. Dick Co. (1912), the U.S. Supreme Court first comprehensively addressed tying arrangements in the context of patent rights, upholding a conditional sales restriction imposed by the patentee of a mimeograph duplicating machine. The machine was sold with a printed notice limiting its use to the seller's stencil paper, ink, and other supplies, and the Court enforced this tie against a third-party supplier of competing ink, holding the latter liable for contributory infringement. By a 6–3 vote, Justice William R. Day's majority opinion applied a rule-of-reason standard, reasoning that such conditions preserved the patent monopoly's integrity without extending it improperly, as the tied supplies were essential complements to the patented invention. This decision effectively permitted patentees to leverage their exclusive rights into adjacent markets for unpatented goods, a practice that raised concerns over foreclosure of competition in those secondary markets. The A. B. Dick ruling influenced the enactment of Section 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act on October 15, 1914, which targeted "tying" or "exclusive dealing" contracts where a seller conditioned the sale of one commodity on the buyer's agreement not to purchase competing goods or to buy additional items from the seller, provided the arrangement substantially lessened competition or tended to create a monopoly. This statutory provision marked an early legislative curb on tying practices beyond pure patent enforcement, responding to perceived abuses like those in A. B. Dick by prohibiting them outright in interstate commerce involving commodities, machinery, or supplies, irrespective of patent status. Subsequent early jurisprudence refined these boundaries in Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co. (1917), where the Court unanimously limited tying to the patent's literal scope. The defendant projector patent holders had licensed machines under agreements requiring use only with their unpatented positive films, which the Court deemed an invalid misuse of the patent monopoly, as it extended control to blank films and processes not claimed in the patents. Justice Joseph McKenna's opinion stressed that patent grants confer no authority over unpatented materials or methods, effectively overruling A. B. Dick's broader tolerance of downstream ties and foreshadowing antitrust scrutiny of arrangements that coerce purchases unrelated to the patented technology's core protection. These pre-World War I decisions thus originated the tying doctrine's dual focus on coercion, market power, and the risk of extending monopolies, setting precedents that transitioned from patent-specific limits to general competition policy under the Sherman Act.

Post-War Developments and Doctrinal Shifts

In the immediate post-World War II era, the reinforced the per se illegality of certain tying arrangements under Section 3 of the Clayton Act, emphasizing their potential to lessen competition without requiring proof of actual market foreclosure or injury. In International Salt Co. v. United States (1947), the Court upheld an against a firm that leased salt-dispensing machines only on condition that lessees purchase the company's salt, ruling that such requirements inherently restrained trade where the tying product was not sold separately, irrespective of the tying firm's market share or intent. This decision extended pre-war precedents by applying a strict of anticompetitive effects to lease-only tying, prioritizing prevention of potential monopoly extension over case-specific economic analysis. Doctrinal refinement emerged in the amid broader antitrust activism during the Eisenhower administration, as the Court clarified prerequisites for per se treatment to avoid overbroad application. The Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. (1953) decision held that a newspaper's policy requiring advertisers to place classified ads in both its morning and evening editions did not constitute tying, as the "products" were functionally identical rather than distinct, introducing a requirement that tying claims identify truly separate or services to invoke per se scrutiny. This shifted emphasis toward functional separability, demanding plaintiffs demonstrate consumer demand for standalone tied products, a criterion rooted in economic realism over formalistic condemnation. By the late 1950s, under the , the doctrine evolved into a structured per se framework balancing coercion concerns with evidentiary thresholds, as articulated in (1958). The Court invalidated land grants conditioned on shipping favors, establishing that tying violates antitrust laws if four elements are met: (1) involvement of two distinct products, (2) sufficient economic power in the tying market to coerce buyers appreciably, (3) a not insubstantial volume of foreclosed in the tied market, and (4) absence of independent justification. Unlike earlier rulings presuming power from exclusivity alone, this required proof of market dominance—typically via share data—marking a causal pivot toward verifiable foreclosure risks rather than presumptive harm, influencing subsequent cases like United States v. Loew's Inc. (1962) on film . These shifts reflected post-war and deconcentration goals, yet sowed seeds for later critiques by introducing economic power assessments that scholars would exploit to advocate rule-of-reason analysis in the .

United States Antitrust Framework

Statutory Foundations and Tests

Tying arrangements derive their primary statutory foundation from Section 3 of the Clayton Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 14, which prohibits sellers from conditioning the lease, sale, or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities on the purchaser's agreement not to use or deal in the goods of a competitor, where such arrangement may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. This provision, enacted in 1914, targets tying and exclusive dealing contracts involving tangible goods and requires a demonstration of probable anticompetitive effects, applying prospectively to assess future impacts rather than solely past conduct. Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, tying arrangements are analyzed as agreements in , applicable to both goods and services, with courts applying a per se rule of illegality when specific conditions are met, or alternatively a analysis weighing pro- and anticompetitive effects. Section 5 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, further empowers the FTC to challenge tying as an unfair method of , often overlapping with Sherman and Clayton analyses but allowing broader scrutiny of incipient threats to . The per se test for tying illegality under the Sherman Act, as refined in Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde (466 U.S. 2, 1984), requires plaintiffs to establish four elements: (1) the existence of two distinct products or services, with the tying product being one that the buyer would purchase separately; (2) sufficient in the tying product to coerce purchases of the tied product, typically demonstrated by a dominant or unique characteristics enabling leverage; (3) the tying arrangement's impact on a not insubstantial volume of in the tied , indicating coercion of a significant number of buyers; and (4) anticompetitive effects, such as of rivals in the tied market. This "modified per se" approach presumes harm upon proof of these elements without full balancing of efficiencies, distinguishing it from pure per se rules like price-fixing, though defendants may rebut by showing the arrangement is not coercive or lacks . For claims under Clayton Act Section 3, courts assess whether the tying seller possesses monopoly or near-monopoly power in the tying product, as early cases like International Salt Co. v. (332 U.S. 392, 1947) treated such dominance as sufficient to trigger presumptive illegality, with the focus on whether the arrangement substantially lessens competition in the tied . Absent such power, or if efficiencies justify the tie, a may apply, evaluating net effects on competition. These tests emphasize of market foreclosure over mere bundling, reflecting judicial caution against condemning pro-competitive practices.

Application to Technology Firms

In the United States antitrust framework, tying arrangements have been scrutinized in technology sectors primarily through the lens of Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, requiring proof of market power in the tying product, coercion, and anticompetitive effects rather than per se illegality in most cases following Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde (1984). A landmark application occurred in United States v. Microsoft Corp. (1998-2001), where the Department of Justice alleged that Microsoft unlawfully tied its Internet Explorer browser to the Windows operating system, leveraging its monopoly in PC operating systems (with over 90% market share as of 1998) to foreclose competition in browsers. The district court initially found the bundling coercive, as Microsoft restricted original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) from removing Internet Explorer icons or promoting rivals like Netscape, but the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001 vacated the tying-specific findings, emphasizing that software integration could yield pro-competitive efficiencies and remanding for rule-of-reason analysis under Section 2 for monopoly maintenance. Subsequent tech cases have applied similar conditional illegality standards, often blending tying claims with broader monopoly leveraging concerns. For instance, in ongoing digital platform litigation, such as the Department of Justice's suits against , tying allegations have surfaced in ad technology markets, where Google's practices were challenged for conditioning access to one service on bundled products, though courts have upheld flawed applications of older tying presumptions while favoring effects-based scrutiny. In (2021), plaintiffs argued "tech-tying" via Apple's App Store policies, which effectively require developers to use Apple's alongside iOS distribution, but the court ruled these as vertical restraints subject to rule-of-reason review, rejecting per se treatment absent clear foreclosure of a discrete tied market. These rulings reflect judicial caution against presuming harm from digital bundling, given evidence of efficiencies like seamless and reduced transaction costs, with empirical studies showing minimal long-term foreclosure in browser markets post-Microsoft. Emerging applications involve AI and hardware-software integration, where firms like providers face scrutiny for tying proprietary AI tools to cloud or device ecosystems. The Department of Justice has signaled potential challenges under existing tests if such practices demonstrably extend monopoly power without offsetting benefits, though no major tying-specific has crystallized as of 2025, underscoring reliance on case-by-case harm assessment over categorical bans. Critics of aggressive tying in tech argue it overlooks first-mover innovations driving consumer welfare, as seen in Microsoft's post-settlement browser erosion to under 50% by 2010.

Banking Sector Provisions

Section 106 of the Amendments of 1970 (12 U.S.C. § 1972) establishes specific prohibitions on tying arrangements within the U.S. banking sector, targeting practices where banks condition the availability or terms of , property, services, or pricing on a customer's agreement to obtain additional products or services from the bank or its affiliates. This provision applies a per se rule to such ties, diverging from the rule-of-reason approach in general antitrust law under the Sherman Act by presuming illegality without requiring proof of or anticompetitive effects, reflecting congressional concerns over banks' leverage in markets to coerce customers into unrelated transactions. The law specifically bars banks from requiring customers to deal exclusively with the bank or its affiliates for ancillary services, such as or investment products, when extending loans or other functions. Exceptions to these restrictions are codified in 12 CFR § 225.7, permitting ties involving traditional banking products like deposits, safe deposit boxes, or checks, as well as certain safe harbors for combined-balance discounts offered to all customers without individualized coercion. For instance, banks may vary loan terms based on a customer's overall relationship with the institution, provided the option to obtain equivalent services elsewhere is meaningfully available and not conditioned on forgoing competitive alternatives. Regulatory interpretations, such as those from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the , emphasize that these exceptions aim to balance anti-tying goals with efficient bundling of complementary services, while prohibiting practices that extend banks' credit-granting power into non-banking markets. Enforcement of these provisions falls to federal banking agencies including the OCC, , and , which conduct examinations and issue interpretive guidance to ensure compliance, with violations potentially leading to cease-and-desist orders or civil penalties. Unlike broader antitrust tying scrutiny under Section 1 of the Sherman Act or Section 3 of the Clayton Act—which requires evidence of substantial of —the banking-specific rules impose stricter liability to curb perceived abuses in deposit and loan markets, enacted amid 1960s concerns over reciprocal dealing and correspondent banking ties. Some analyses argue this framework remains relevant for preventing monopoly-like extensions of banking power but may overly restrict pro-competitive discounts in modern .

European Union Competition Law

In , tying arrangements by a dominant undertaking are assessed under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the (TFEU), which prohibits the abuse of a dominant position. Tying occurs when a firm conditions the sale of a tying product on the purchase of a distinct tied product, without providing customers a genuine choice. Such practices are considered potentially exclusionary if they foreclose competitors in the tied market, thereby restricting competition to the detriment of consumers. To establish an abusive tying under Article 102 TFEU, four cumulative conditions must be satisfied, as clarified in Commission decisions and upheld by the Court of Justice of the (CJEU). First, the undertaking must hold a dominant position in the for the tying product, typically assessed through thresholds exceeding 50%, , and the absence of competitive constraints. Second, the tying and tied products must be distinct, evaluated via the "separate products test," which examines whether there is sufficient consumer demand for standalone purchase of the tied product and no technological necessity linking them. Third, the dominant firm must impose the tying through technical restrictions, contractual conditions, or economic , denying customers a viable alternative to buy the tying product unbundled. Fourth, the practice must be capable of producing anticompetitive foreclosure effects in the tied market, such as reduced competition, higher prices, or innovation stifling, rather than mere harm to individual competitors; actual effects need not be proven if the capability is demonstrated. The applies an effects-based analysis, requiring evidence that the tying departs from competition on the merits and is not objectively justified by efficiencies, such as cost savings or quality improvements benefiting consumers. Objective justifications may rebut presumptions of abuse, but the burden lies on the dominant firm to prove pro-competitive benefits outweigh anticompetitive harms. Recent draft guidelines from August 2024 emphasize that certain tying practices by highly dominant firms (e.g., with market shares over 80-90%) may trigger a rebuttable of exclusionary effects, shifting slightly from prior case-by-case assessments while maintaining the need for analysis. This framework draws from precedents like the case (2004), where tying to the Windows operating system was deemed abusive due to in markets. Bundling, a variant of tying involving discounts for purchasing products together, is evaluated similarly but may raise concerns if it leverages dominance to exclude rivals through or margin squeeze in the bundled market. Unlike per se prohibitions in some jurisdictions, EU rejects automatic illegality, prioritizing empirical assessment of market impact over form alone, though critics argue often presumes harm in digital contexts.

Key Enforcement Actions

In 2004, the European Commission found Microsoft guilty of abusing its dominant position in the market for client PC operating systems by tying Windows Media Player to the Windows operating system, imposing a fine of €497 million and requiring Microsoft to offer a version of Windows without the media player. The decision was upheld by the General Court in 2007, with the fine confirmed, though Microsoft successfully appealed a portion related to interoperability remedies in 2012. In 2013, the Commission imposed a €561 million fine on for failing to comply with a 2009 commitment to display a browser choice screen to Windows users, aimed at remedying prior tying of to Windows; this non-compliance prolonged the exclusionary effects of the bundling. The fine was upheld by the General Court in 2017. The Commission's 2018 decision against marked a major escalation in tying enforcement, fining the company €4.34 billion for abusing its dominance in general mobile searches and Android OS by requiring manufacturers to pre-install and Chrome apps as a condition for licensing the Store, thereby foreclosing rivals. On appeal, the General Court in 2022 reduced the fine to €4.125 billion by annulling one aspect of the tying finding related to revenue-sharing agreements, but upheld the core bundling prohibitions; further appeals remain pending as of 2025. In November 2024, the Commission fined €797.72 million for tying its Marketplace classified ads service to the dominant social network, determining that the bundling leveraged dominance to exclude competing ad platforms without efficiency justifications. The decision emphasized the lack of and foreclosure effects, with Meta contesting the findings. Ongoing probes include a 2024 statement of objections against for tying Teams videoconferencing to productivity suites, alleging abuse of dominance in PC operating systems and office software to entrench Teams against rivals like Slack and Zoom; a final decision could result in fines up to 10% of global turnover. These actions reflect the Commission's effects-based approach, prioritizing demonstrable foreclosure over per se illegality, though critics argue it risks over-enforcement against integrated products.

Global Variations and Recent Developments

Approaches in Other Jurisdictions

In , tied selling is regulated under section 77 of the as a reviewable trade practice, prohibiting suppliers from supplying a product on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service, unless the arrangement does not substantially lessen competition. The assesses such practices for anti-competitive effects rather than deeming them per se illegal, with remedies including injunctions or orders to cease the conduct following review by the Competition Tribunal. For dominant firms, tying may also constitute abuse of dominance under section 79 if it prevents entry or expansion by competitors. Australia treats tying as a potential form of exclusive dealing under section 47 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA), which is generally permissible unless likely to substantially lessen competition in a market. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) scrutinizes tying by firms with substantial as possible misuse under section 46, focusing on whether it deters rivals' competition without pro-competitive justifications like efficiency gains. Enforcement emphasizes effects-based analysis, with recent reforms strengthening penalties for anti-competitive vertical restraints, including tying in digital markets. In the , tying arrangements by dominant undertakings are prohibited under Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 if they constitute an abuse of dominant position, such as conditioning the sale of a tying product on of a tied product without objective justification. The (CMA) evaluates foreclosure effects on competitors and consumer harm, drawing on precedents requiring proof of in both tying and tied product markets. Post-Brexit, UK law maintains an effects-based approach similar to prior EU standards but with independent enforcement, including fines up to 10% of global turnover for violations. Japan's Antimonopoly Act explicitly bans tying as an unfair trade practice under Article 2(9)(v), making it unlawful to force counterparties to purchase tied products alongside the main supply, regardless of dominance in the tied market, if it restricts trade freedom. The Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) enforces this through cease-and-desist orders and surcharges, with 2024 actions targeting tying in sectors like and to prevent exclusionary effects. Justifications such as safety or may apply but require substantiation, reflecting a stricter stance than effects-only tests in jurisdictions. China's Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) Article 17 prohibits dominant firms from engaging in tying sales without legitimate business reasons, with the (SAMR) actively enforcing against bundling in digital platforms and consumer goods since 2013. Thirteen investigations by 2020 focused on tech firms' tying practices, imposing fines and behavioral remedies to curb foreclosure, emphasizing market dominance presumption in relevant markets. Enforcement prioritizes protecting competition in high-growth sectors, with penalties up to 10% of prior-year turnover.

Digital Age Challenges and Reforms

In the , traditional antitrust analysis of tying arrangements faces significant challenges due to the integrated nature of platform ecosystems, where distinguishing between complementary bundling and coercive tying becomes complex. Multi-sided platforms often bundle services like search, advertising, and app distribution, leveraging network effects and zero marginal costs to create efficiencies that benefit consumers, yet potentially foreclose rivals by extending dominance across markets. For instance, tying practices in mobile operating systems and app stores raise questions about whether default integrations, such as pre-installing browsers or search engines, constitute separate products under the , as courts have increasingly scrutinized choices rather than presuming illegality. These dynamics complicate enforcement, as pro-competitive efficiencies—like reduced transaction costs and enhanced user convenience—must be weighed against potential anticompetitive , particularly in data-driven markets where tying can users and stifle . Regulatory responses have emphasized ex ante prohibitions and heightened scrutiny to address these issues. In the , the (DMA), effective from March 2024, designates "gatekeeper" platforms such as , Apple, and Amazon and explicitly bans tying core platform services to ancillary ones, including conditioning access to operating systems on the use of affiliated search engines or browsers under Articles 5(7) and 5(8). This shifts from case-by-case abuse of dominance claims under Article 102 TFEU to presumptive rules, aiming to prevent leveraging without proving harm, though critics argue it risks overregulation by ignoring platform-specific efficiencies. In the United States, enforcement relies on the , with the Department of Justice and pursuing tying allegations in broader suits, such as against Google's Android practices (echoing a 2018 EU fine of €4.34 billion for similar bundling) and Apple's policies tying payments to its system, but without adopting per se illegality due to recognized efficiencies in digital integration. Proposed reforms in the include legislative efforts like the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, which sought to curb platform self-preferencing akin to tying but stalled in as of 2023, reflecting debates over whether doctrinal shifts toward structural remedies or brighter-line rules are needed to counter digital concentration without stifling innovation. Globally, convergence toward anti-monopoly approaches is evident, with the EU's DMA influencing US discussions, though American courts maintain skepticism toward ex ante rules, prioritizing evidence of actual harm over presumptions. These reforms underscore a tension: while digital tying can enable rapid scaling and user value, unchecked dominance risks entrenching incumbents, prompting calls for updated tests that account for dynamic competition in software markets.

Controversies and Policy Debates

Critiques of Per Se Rules

Critics of per se rules for tying arrangements argue that they presumptively condemn practices that frequently generate pro-competitive efficiencies, such as reduced production costs through and lower transaction costs for consumers via bundled offerings. Economic theory demonstrates that tying can enhance product quality and convenience, as seen in integrated software bundles or complementary hardware designs like safety features, which yielded an estimated $560 million in consumer welfare gains in one empirical study. By treating tying as inherently anticompetitive without case-specific inquiry, per se illegality risks false condemnations, particularly in dynamic markets where innovations like software integration provide substantial benefits. A core economic critique draws on the single monopoly profit theorem, which holds that a monopolist in the tying product market cannot profitably extend monopoly power to a tied product market, as any foreclosure would merely shift profits without expanding total monopoly rents beyond competitive levels. Tying instead often enables efficient price discrimination, such as demand metering, where usage of the tied product reveals consumer willingness to pay, allowing firms to serve low-valuation users who might otherwise be excluded and thereby increasing overall output. Chicago School scholars, including Robert Bork, have emphasized that per se prohibitions ignore these mechanisms, advocating a consumer welfare standard that prioritizes net effects over structural presumptions of harm. Empirical evidence supports this view, showing tying's ubiquity in competitive markets without widespread anticompetitive foreclosure. Proponents of abandoning per se treatment, such as in the analyses by Ahlborn, Evans, and Padilla, contend that no robust justifies a blanket ban, as post-Chicago refinements confirm tying's potential for welfare enhancement while anticompetitive cases require proof of specific harms like exclusionary effects on rivals. Courts applying modified per se tests, like the market share thresholds in Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde (1984), struggle to distinguish benign from harmful ties, leading to inefficient litigation and under-deterrence of true . has similarly critiqued rigid per se approaches to vertical restraints, including tying, for neglecting economic incentives that promote efficiency over . These arguments favor a rule-of-reason framework with structured steps—assessing , foreclosure effects, and efficiencies—to align antitrust enforcement with causal evidence of consumer harm rather than presumptive illegality.

Effects on Innovation and Markets

Tying arrangements can enhance market efficiency by reducing transaction costs, enabling for metering demand, and ensuring compatibility between complementary products, thereby lowering overall production expenses for firms and providing consumers with bundled convenience. For instance, requirements tying, where a seller conditions purchases on specified quantities or types, facilitates and protects investments in durable goods like printers by tying them to proprietary ink cartridges, which recoups fixed costs and discourages free-riding by rivals. These mechanisms promote without necessitating in the tied product, as evidenced in theoretical models showing tying's role in optimal resource distribution under transparent market conditions. Regarding , dynamic economic analyses indicate that tying enables incumbent firms to commit credibly to aggressive (R&D) investments, as the ability to bundle products allows recoupment of innovation costs through extended market reach, potentially increasing overall welfare in industries with network effects or complementary technologies. In such frameworks, prohibiting tying could deter R&D by removing incentives for firms to develop superior tied products, particularly in high-fixed-cost sectors like software or hardware, where bundling fosters integration and rapid iteration. Empirical support for these pro-innovative effects remains theoretical rather than case-specific, but historical examples, such as printer-ink models, demonstrate sustained in tied markets without widespread of rivals. Conversely, critics argue that tying by dominant firms can foreclose in the tied market, raising rivals' costs and potentially dampening incentives for entrant by limiting access to necessary scale or . This foreclosure theory posits harm through reduced rivalry, where the tied product's market share leverage extends monopoly power, though real-world evidence of consumer harm or stifled is sparse, with many condemned ties failing to demonstrate substantial foreclosure thresholds like 30-40% market exclusion. Per se illegality under traditional antitrust rules has been critiqued for overlooking these efficiencies, leading to over-deterrence that chills market experimentation and bundling strategies beneficial in digital contexts. Overall, while risks exist in cases of proven dominance and substantial exclusion, economic consensus leans toward rule-of-reason , as blanket prohibitions undervalue tying's role in fostering efficient markets and incentivizing innovation, with limited empirical cases confirming net anticompetitive effects.

References

  1. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/tying-sale-two-products
  2. https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/what-are-the-elements-of-a-per-se-illegal-tying-claim-under-the-antitrust-laws
  3. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tying_arrangement
  4. https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/antitrust-economics-tying-farewell-se-illegality
  5. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2807&context=faculty_scholarship
  6. https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/tying-poster-child-antitrust-modernization
  7. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5995&context=mlr
  8. https://project-disco.org/competition/042319-antitrust-in-60-seconds-tying-bundling/
  9. https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/why-do-firms-bundle-and-tie-evidence-competitive-markets-and-implications-tying-law
  10. https://www.compcomm.hk/en/practices/what_is_comp/tying_bundling.html
  11. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1999063
  12. https://ndlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/NDLR_99.0821_Crane.pdf
  13. https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/context/faculty_scholarship/article/1781/viewcontent/Tying_Law_and_Policy.pdf
  14. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1145529
  15. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/04-1329
  16. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/224/1/
  17. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/243/502/
  18. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/332/392/
  19. https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/tying-requirements-ties-efficiency-and-innovation
  20. https://www.sidley.com/-/media/files/publications/2008/03/getting-the-deal-through--vertical-agreements-2008/files/view-united-states-chapter/fileattachment/united-states-21.pdf
  21. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2966&context=lalrev
  22. https://appliedantitrust.com/22_tying/22_tying.pdf
  23. https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3863&context=smulr
  24. https://www.jonesday.com/-/media/files/publications/2012/06/the-wonderful-world-of-tying-the-101-practice-seri/files/tying/fileattachment/tying.pdf?rev=075a606d2b66405cb120a24135084f9f&sc_lang=en
  25. https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawreview/article/5382/galley/22215/view/
  26. https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/fdscontent/uscompanion/us/pdf/kwoka/0195120159_14.pdf
  27. https://www.lexplug.com/casebrief/jefferson_parish_hosp_dist_no_2_v_hyde_659dfff64890e63827c93e61
  28. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2873&context=uclrev
  29. https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp
  30. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/US_v_Microsoft3.pdf
  31. https://www.promarket.org/2025/04/29/google-ad-tech-delivered-an-important-victory-for-the-government-using-a-flawed-tying-rule/
  32. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1646&context=elr
  33. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.15.2.63
  34. https://businesslawreview.uchicago.edu/online-archive/potential-antitrust-implications-tying-hardware-ai
  35. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/1972
  36. https://www.federalreserve.gov/secrs/2003/november/20031105/op-1158/op-1158_24_2.pdf
  37. https://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/1995/bulletin-1995-20.html
  38. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/225.7
  39. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2003/08/29/03-22091/anti-tying-restrictions-of-section-106-of-the-bank-holding-company-act-amendments-of-1970
  40. https://www.occ.treas.gov/topics/charters-and-licensing/interpretations-and-actions/2004/int982.pdf
  41. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-04-3-highlights.pdf
  42. https://journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu/arizlrev/article/id/8303/download/pdf/
  43. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-law-thats-out-of-date-anti-tying-restrictions-on-banks/
  44. https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39530/39530_2671_3.pdf
  45. https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/public-consultations/2024-article-102-guidelines_en
  46. https://academic.oup.com/jeclap/article/15/4/222/7690940
  47. https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-04-382_en.htm
  48. https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39530/39530_3162_3.pdf
  49. https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
  50. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/competition-blog/google-android-the-general-court-takes-its-position/
  51. https://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/cartels-laws-and-regulations/european-union/
  52. https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-charges-microsoft-with-abusive-bundling-teams-with-office-2024-06-25/
  53. https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/the-european-commissions-draft-guidelines-on-exclusionary-abuses-towards-stricter-enforcement
  54. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-34/section-77.html
  55. https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/restrictive-trade-practices/exclusive-dealing-tied-selling-and-market-restrictions
  56. https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/how-we-foster-competition/education-and-outreach/abuse-dominance-enforcement-guidelines
  57. https://www.australiancompetitionlaw.info/law/exclusive-dealing
  58. https://www.accc.gov.au/business/competition-and-exemptions/misuse-of-market-power
  59. https://iclg.com/practice-areas/vertical-agreements-and-dominant-firms-laws-and-regulations/australia
  60. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-383-7925?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  61. https://www.clearygottlieb.com/-/media/organize-archive/cgsh/files/2017/publications/dominance-2017ukd-little-and-a-waksman-7-5-17.pdf
  62. https://www.ashurst.com/en/insights/quickguide-overview-of-uk-competition-law/
  63. https://www.jftc.go.jp/en/about_jftc/MessagefromChairma/index_2_1.html
  64. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/competition-blog/main-developments-in-competition-law-and-policy-2024-japan/
  65. https://iclg.com/practice-areas/vertical-agreements-and-dominant-firms-laws-and-regulations/japan
  66. https://www.chinalawandpractice.com/2015/10/12/targeting-tying-practices-in-china/
  67. https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Asia-Column-July-2020.pdf
  68. https://www.jonesday.com/-/media/files/publications/2017/01/chinese-antitrust-enforcement-against-tying-exclus/files/chinese-antitrust-enforcement/fileattachment/chinese-antitrust-enforcement.pdf?rev=2be9239ef9a84b02b300a449d655c6a7&sc_lang=en
  69. https://academic.oup.com/jcle/article/19/1/103/6754351
  70. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/690589/EPRS_BRI%282021%29690589_EN.pdf
  71. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/resources/magazine/2022-fall/eu-digital-markets-act/
  72. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46875
  73. https://www.promarket.org/2025/06/18/eu-and-us-antitrust-is-converging-on-anti-monopoly/
  74. https://businesslawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/antitrust-reform-digital-era-skeptical-perspective
  75. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=381940
  76. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/antitrust-magazine-online/03_02.pdf
  77. https://academic.oup.com/ej/article-abstract/114/492/83/5087836
  78. http://xcsc.xoc.uam.mx/apymes/webftp/documentos/biblioteca/Tying%2520and%2520innovation%2C%2520A%2520dynamic%2520analysis%2520of%2520tying%2520arrangements.pdf
  79. https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2233&context=sulr
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.