Monopsony and Backward Integration: Section 2 Violations in the Buyer\u27s Market

This Comment will focus on the application of section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act to actions in the buyer\u27s market. After briefly reviewing general antitrust law, this Comment will explore the status of antitrust claims in the buyer\u27s market under both section 1 and section 2. The necessary elements of a section 2 monopsony claim will then be reviewed with particular emphasis on the types of buyer activities that might support a seller\u27s claim under this section. As will be shown, the anticompetitive effect of these activities provides the major distinction between actions in the buyer\u27s and seller\u27s market. Despite these distinctions, monopsony claims are cognizable under section 2, particularly when exclusionary activities are involved. The viability of such a claim may not be immediately apparent and should be carefully considered by litigants and thoughtfully reviewed by the courts. The Supreme Court\u27s most recent review of anticompetitive injury in Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colo., Inc., and the Court\u27s adoption of stricter summary judgment standards in Matsushita Elec. Ind. v. Zenith Radio, however, make it imperative that litigants recognize, plead, and prove the proper antitrust injury and effect when pursuing a claim in the buyer\u27s market