Previous business/academic article Next business/academic article
Business Articles Awards > Concerted Practices

Analyzing Incentives and Liability in “Hub-and-Spoke” Conspiracies

Craig Falls and Celeste Saravia, Distribution and Franchising Committee Newsletter: ABA Section of Antitrust Law, April 2015

See Craig Falls's resume See Celeste Saravia's resume

Vote for this articleHelp

* Average
** Interesting
*** Good
**** Excellent
***** Must receive an Award!

Please note that the star(s) appearing on the article page before you have voted reflect the status of all votes registered to date.

Readers’ vote will close on February 15, 2016. Readers’ vote will allow you to nominate 1 article for each of the Awards, i.e., 10 Academic articles, 10 Business articles, and the best Soft Laws. The readers’ short-list of Academic and Business Articles will be communicated to the Board together with the 20 articles nominated by the Steering Committees. The Board will decide on the award-winning articles. Results will be announced at the Awards ceremony to take place in Washington DC on the eve of the ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting on April 5, 2016.

This article attempts to bring some order to the analysis of hub-and-spoke conspiracies by analyzing the incentives of the participants and explaining how those incentives should inform the analysis of liability. Because we find that the incentives change dramatically from one type of hub-and-spoke conspiracy to the next, we first propose a taxonomy that divides hub-and-spoke conspiracies into three classes based on whether the harm to competition occurs at the level of the vertical participant, at the level of the horizontal participants, or at both levels, and we provide representative examples of each class. We then proceed to explain the incentives in each class of hub-and-spoke conspiracy and finish by discussing how these incentives should impact the analysis of liability.

Download our brochure