The aim of this article is to provide a short overview and analysis of the US antitrust law. Section 2 of the Sherman Act stipulates that it is unlawful to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations. The article presents case law that reflects the evolution of monopolization standards and provides some interpretations of undertakings’ behavior that can be defined as monopolization. US practice shows that monopolization standards have changed several times, in accordance with the need to increasingly consider economic efficiencies and the consequences of making wrong decisions, which may lead to reduced innovation and other behaviors of undertakings that increase economic efficiency and improve competition, which is a type I error.
- Areeda, Phillip, Donald F. Turner. 1975. Predatory Pricing and Related Practices under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Harvard Law Review 4: 697–733.
- Canoy, Marcel, Patrick Rey, Eric van Damme. 2004. Dominance and Monopolization. 210–289 in The International Handbook of Competition, edited by Manfred Neumann and Jürgen Weigand. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.
- Cass, Ronald A, Keith N. Hylton. 2001. Antitrust Intent. Southern California Law Review. 74(3): 657–745.
- Elhauge, Einer. 2003. Defining Better Monopolization Standards. Stanford Law Review. 56(2): 253–344.
- Fox, Eleanor M. 1986. Monopolization and Dominance in the United States and the European Community: Efficiency, Opportunity, and Fairness. Notre Dame Law Review 61(5): 981–1020.
- Fox, Eleanor M. 2008. Abuse of Dominance and Monopolisation: How to Protect Competition Without Protecting Competitors. 69–77 in European Competition Law Annual 2007: A Reformed Approach to Article 82 EC, edited by Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, Mel Marquis. Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing.
- Fox, Eleanor M. 2014. Monopolization and Abuse of Dominance: Why Europe is Different. The Antitrust Bulletin 59(1): 129–152.
- Hylton, Keith N. 2003. Antitrust Law: Economic Theory and Common Law Evolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Hylton, Keith N. 2005. Section 2 and Article 82: A Comparison of American and European Approaches to Monopolization Law. Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 06–11. https://ssrn.com/abstract=902655 (last visited 31 October 2020).
- Hylton, Keith N. 2010. The Law and Economics of Monopolization Standards. 82–115 in Antitrust Law and Economics, edited by Keith N. Hylton. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.
- Landes, William M, Richard A. Posner. 1981. Market Power in Antitrust Cases. Harvard Law Review 94(5): 937–996.
- Kolasky, William J. 2002. What is Competition? U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division. https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/519761/download (last visited 26 October 2020).
- Kolasky, William J. 2004. What is Competition? A Comparison of U.S. and European Perspectives. The Antitrust Bulletin 49(1–2): 29–53.
- McGee, John S. 1958. Predatory Price Cutting: The Standard Oil (N. J.) Case. Journal of Law and Economics 1: 137–169.
- Meese, Alan J. 2005. Monopolization, Exclusion, and the Theory of the Firm. Minnesota Law Review 89(3): 743–847.
- Motta, Massimo.  2009. Competition Policy – Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Reprint.
- Philippon, Thomas. 2019. The Great Reversal: How America Gave Up on Free Market. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
- Schweitzer, Heike. 2008. The History, Interpretation and Underlying Principles of Section 2 Sherman Act and Article 82 EC. 119–164 in European Competition Law Annual 2007: A Reformed Approach to Article 82 EC, edited by Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, Mel Marquis. Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing.
- Werden, Gregory J. 2006. Identifying Exclusionary Conduct under Section 2: The “No Economic Sense” Test. Antitrust Law Journal 73(2): 413–433.