European Journal of Law and Economics

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 197–220 | Cite as

An ice cream war: Bundling, tying, and foreclosure

  • Moore Mcdowell
Article

Abstract

Ice cream markets in Europe are characterized by vertical restraints of varying degrees of restrictiveness. Mars, an entrant to the market, sought to establish in a court action and in a complaint to the European Union Commission that the dominant incumbent, Unilever, had acted with the object and effect of foreclosing the market in Ireland by bundling the price of ice cream and freezer services and restricting retailers to stocking Unilever product alone in freezers supplied by them. This article applies a model of bundling, tying, and foreclosure developed by M.D. Whinston to demonstrate that it would not have been rational for Unilever to attempt to foreclose the market by means of these restrictions and therefore that the Commission was not justified in obliging Unilever to accept the changes imposed on it.

Keywords

vertical restraints tying bundling foreclosure abuse of a dominant position 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Matthewson, G. F., and R. A. Winter. (1986). “The Economics of Vertical Restraints in Distribution.” In J. Stiglitz and G. F. Matthewson,New Developments in the Analysis of Market Structure (ch. 7). London: MacMillan, for the International Economic Association.Google Scholar
  2. Monopolies and Mergers Commission. (1979).Ice Cream and Water Ices: A Report on the Supply in the United Kingdom of Ice Cream and Water Ices. Comnd. 7632. London: H. M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  3. Salop, S. (1979). “Strategic Entry Deterrence.”American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 69(2), 335–338.Google Scholar
  4. Salop, S., and D. Scheffman. (1983). “Raising Rivals' Costs.”American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 73(2), 267–271.Google Scholar
  5. Schrank, W., and N. Roy. (1991). “Market Delineation in the Analysis of the United States Groundfish Market.”Antitrust Bulletin 36(1), 91–154.Google Scholar
  6. Whinston, M. D. (1990). “Tying, Foreclosure and Exclusion.”American Economic Review 80(4), 857–859.Google Scholar
  7. Whish, R. (1993).Competition Law (3rd ed.). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Moore Mcdowell
    • 1
  1. 1.Economics DepartmentUniversity CollegeDublin 4Ireland

Personalised recommendations