Originally Posted by
indyfabz
1. In order to engage in "price fixing," as that term has legal meaning, you need the action of at least two competitors. Shimano cannot engage in price fixing on its own and with respect to its own products.
2. Market share alone is not sufficient evidence of monopoly power, which has a specific legal definition.
3. Not all monopolies are unlawful.
NY and California law is different on
#1 .
Market share is not by itself determinitive, but as your market share increases, other factors get more scrutiny.
The crime and civil offense is actually monopolization, not owning a monopoly. There are markets that are considered natural monopolies. I don't think bike components is likely one of those.
I'm not saying it's a slam-dunk, but it also shouldn't be dismissed as a possibility out of hand. There's a lot of people (bike producers and dealers/resellers) who are being locked out of the market who are going to have a huge incentive to bring actions. The argument is basically that Shimano suppresses competition between resellers in order to maintain higher prices. That argument is currently not great with the US Supreme Court, but might be really effective in other jurisdictions, and also Congress could change the Sherman Act at some time if we end up with, say, a President Warren.
We could probably do this all day, but this is going to be my last post on the subject because it's getting a bit too far into the legal/political weeds, and I don't really think anyone wants to read more of a brief on the topic here.