This article is part of a Chronicle. See more from this Chronicle
Timothy Brennan, Sep 01, 2008
If email traffic over the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Section “conversation” list is any indication, the recent 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court in FTC v. Whole Foods is the hottest current topic, at least in the U.S. corner of the competition policy community. In that decision, the DC Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC’s”) request to enjoin Whole Foods™ acquisition of Wild Oats. The FTC provided evidence and expert testimony supporting a claim that these were the two largest chains of “premium, natural, and organic supermarkets” (“PNOS”). The parties contended that the firms would lack market power after the merger because consumers would respond to higher prices by going to conventional grocery stores. The decision has inspired so much comment because of the quantity of issues it raises. In this article, I briefly discuss some legal issues, then turn to aspects of market definition, and conclude with observations relating to recent discussions on the role of distributional considerations in merger assessment.
