In an amicus curiae brief filed on behalf of the Joint Center, AEI Resident Scholar Robert Bork and Center co-director Robert Litan argue that the Minnesota Supreme Court should reverse a lower court opinion against the BASF Corporation which permits a jury to decide that a price disparity between two herbicides sold by the company constitutes an ‘unconscionably large profit.’
Bork and Litan contend that the lower court’s decision is both bad economics and bad law, is inconsistent with federal antitrust laws, and inappropriately punishes a company for discounting prices. If upheld, the lower court decision also would legitimize jury determinations of what constitutes reasonable price setting, a job that, in the absence of any evidence of unlawful collusion, should be left to markets.
The Brookings Institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact.
We are supported by a diverse array of funders. In line with our values and policies, each Brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s).