Against The Sliding Scale
Alan J. Meese
Gavil and Salop argue that the Chicago School’s antitrust approach leads to overly strict standards for plaintiffs, resulting in false negatives. They propose a “sliding scale” rule of reason analysis, expanding quick-look assessments to deem more restraints “inherently suspect.” This essay critiques their view, noting modern rule-of-reason analysis originates from Harvard’s Phillip Areeda, not Chicago. It warns against diluting plaintiffs’ burdens without clear standards.
Volume 173 | 2025
Online EditionOnline
