...
首页> 外文期刊>International review of intellectual property and competition law >Ohio v. American Express and the Balancing of Consumer Welfare Effects on Multiple Sides of a Platform
【24h】

Ohio v. American Express and the Balancing of Consumer Welfare Effects on Multiple Sides of a Platform

机译:俄亥俄州v。美国运通和平衡平台多边的消费者福利效果的平衡

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In Ohio v. American Express Co. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that in the case of transaction platforms, a single relevant market must be defined, where both sides of the platform simultaneously consume the same good, namely, a transaction. Therefore, a plaintiff must show net overall harm to all sides of the market to satisfy its prima facie burden of proof. This case note argues that this rule is ill-suited to distinguish between procompetitive behavior and exercises of market power that can be justified with mere wealth transfers from one side of the market to the other. In line with an alternative allocation of the burden of proof proposed in the literature, this case note proposes a standard for evaluating countervailing benefits on all sides of the platform. Finally, the case note explains why the Court's analysis of the effects of the anti-steering provisions was based on faulty economic grounds and the cherry-picking of facts on the record developed at the district court.
机译:在俄亥俄州诉美国快递公司美国最高法院裁定,在交易平台的情况下,必须定义一个相关的市场,平台的两侧同时消耗相同的好,即交易。因此,原告必须对市场的各个方面造成净综合伤害,以满足其Prima的证据负担。本例证辩称,这条规则不适合区分性竞争行为和市场权力的练习,这些行为可以用仅仅从市场的一侧到另一方的财富转移。符合文献中提出的证据负担的替代配置,本例说明提出了评估平台各方的反补贴效益的标准。最后,案件说明解释了为什么法院对反转向规定的影响的分析是基于有缺陷的经济理由和地区法院制定的记录的樱桃挑选。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号