60. Which of the following is not permitted as a possible remedy in antitrust actions?
a. force a company to sell a subsidiary
b. force a company to let other use its patents
c. restrain a company from certain business conduct
d. force a company to create a new company to compete with it
e. all of the other choices are permitted
61. Which of the following is not permitted as a possible remedy in antitrust actions?
a. force a company to sell a subsidiary
b. force a company to let other use its patents
c. force a company to buy another company
d. force a company to create a new company to compete with it
e. all of the other choices are permitted
62. Which of the following is a possible remedy to an antitrust suit brought by a private plaintiff:
a. restrain a company from certain conduct
b. force a company to sell part of its assets
c. force a company to let other use its patents
d. cancel existing business contracts
e. all of the other specific choices are correct
63. Which of the following is a possible remedy to an antitrust suit brought by the government:
a. restrain a company from certain conduct
b. force a company to sell part of its assets
c. force a company to let other use its patents
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
64. To recover damages under antitrust law, plaintiffs must have:
a. suffered injury due to anticompetitive behaviors of the defendant
b. lost money in a business deal
c. have less than a 30% market share in any product or service they sell
d. suffered losses due to the defendant’s successes
e. none of the other choices are correct
65. Which of the following statements about the per se rule and the rule of reason antitrust doctrines is true?
a. under rule of reason, only proof of an antitrust violation is needed for the courts to rule the firm violates
antitrust laws
b. under per se, the court rules that the actions of the firm are not justified given the weight of the evidence
c. under rule of reason, the court rules that any violation of antitrust legislation is illegal
d. under per se, if precedent found a business action to be illegal it always remains illegal
e. none of the other choices
66. Which of the following statements about the per se rule and the rule of reason antitrust doctrines is true?
a. under rule of reason, only proof of an antitrust violation is needed for the courts to rule the firm violates
antitrust laws
b. under per se, the court rules that the actions of the firm are not justified given the weight of the evidence
c. under rule of reason, the court consider the impact of a business practice to determine if it is harmful to
competition
d. under per se, if precedent found a business action to be illegal it always remains illegal
e. none of the other choices
67. Which of the following statements about the per se rule and the rule of reason antitrust doctrines is true?
a. under rule of reason, only proof of an antitrust violation is needed for the courts to rule the firm violates
antitrust laws
b. under per se, the court rule that a certain business practice being committed is automatically illegal
c. under rule of reason, the court consider the impact of a business practice to determine if it is harmful to
competition
d. under per se, if precedent found a business action to be illegal, it always remains illegal
e. none of the other choices
68. A(n)
to exist.
means that that certain business agreements or activities will automatically be held to be illegal if found
a. rule of reason
b. per se rule
c. terminal rule
d. antitrust rule
e. firm rule
69. A(n)
to exist.
means that that certain business agreements or activities will automatically be held to be illegal if found
a. rule of reason
b. firm rule
c. terminal rule
d. antitrust rule
e. none of the other choices are correct
70. The classic example of a per se violation of antitrust law is:
a. two companies agreeing to stop buying from a third company
b. a group of competitors deciding to outsource all manufacturing overseas
c. a group of 5 or more competitors agreeing to use the same supplier so they can buy things in bulk and get
better prices
d. a group of competitors agreeing on the prices they will charge for their goods so as to eliminate price
competition
e. none of the other choices are correct
71. A means that the court looks at the facts surrounding business practice before deciding whether it helps or
hurts competition.
a. per se rule
b. rule of reason
c. rule of reasonableness
d. rule of thoughtfulness
e. golden rule
72. A means that the court looks at the facts surrounding business practice before deciding whether it helps or
hurts competition.
a. per se rule
b. golden rule
c. rule of reasonableness
d. rule of thoughtfulness
e. none of the other choices are correct
73. Which of the following is a factor that the a court considers when using the rule of reason in antitrust cases:
a. the business reasons for the restraint
b. the restraining business’s position in its industry
c. the structure of the industry
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
74. The courts use the rule of reason to decide many antitrust cases because:
a. the courts consider the facts surrounding a case to decide if a practice hurts or helps competition
b. it is reasonable to compare a case being tried to a previous case and use the decision from that case
c. the courts would rather use the rule of reason than go through a detailed economic analysis
d. all practices attacked under antitrust laws are anti-competitive and thus prohibited
e. none of the other choices
75. The courts use the rule of reason to decide many antitrust cases because:
a. the Clayton Act requires a rule of reason analysis be used
b. it is reasonable to compare a case being tried to a previous case and use the decision from that case
c. the courts would rather use the rule of reason than go through a detailed economic analysis
d. all practices attacked under antitrust laws are anti-competitive and thus prohibited
e. none of the other choices
76. When a court considers the net effect of a business practice that is being challenged in an antitrust case, it is:
a. declaring the practice illegal per se
b. declaring the practice legal per se
c. using the rule of reason
d. rejecting the rule of reason
e. ignoring Congressional purpose behind the antitrust laws
77. When a court considers the net effect of a business practice that is being challenged in an antitrust case, it is:
a. declaring the practice illegal per se
b. declaring the practice legal per se
c. ignoring Congressional purpose behind the antitrust laws
d. rejecting the rule of reason
e. none of the other choices
78. The cases concerning monopolization indicate:
a. a concern with protecting competitors
b. a desire to restrict the size of firms
c. protecting competition itself
d. the per se rule generally applies
e. none of the other choices
79. Which of the following is NOT restricted by antitrust law:
a. unfair business practices
b. monopolies
c. the size of firms
d. business practices that can lead to a monopoly
e. all of the other choices are restricted by antitrust law
80. Antitrust law restricting monopolization favors competition because:
a. it lowers prices for consumers
b. it spurs companies to innovate
c. it increases consumer choice
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
81. Which of the following is a downside to monopolies:
a. monopolies tend to charge higher prices
b. monopolies offer inferior service
c. monopolies are slow to innovate
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
82. In Spanish Broadcasting v. Clear Channel, where Spanish sued Clear for monopolization of the Spanish-
language radio market because it owned a share of Hispanic Broadcasting, a large Spanish-language radio chain,
the court held that the:
a. link between Clear and Hispanic was an interlocking directorate violating the Clayton Act
b. two companies acted “in concert” to try to damage Spanish‘s market position, thereby violating the Sherman
Act
c. two companies controlled a dominant share of the market and used their power to reduce the ability of
Spanish to obtain sponsors, thereby violating the Sherman Act
d. relationship was monopolization and Clear had to sell its interest in Hispanic
e. none of the other choices
83. In Spanish Broadcasting v. Clear Channel, where Spanish sued Clear for monopolization of the Spanish-
language radio market because it owned a share of Hispanic Broadcasting, a large Spanish-language radio chain,
the court held that the:
a. case failed because Spanish could not show evidence of anticompetitive conduct
b. two companies acted “in concert” to try to damage Spanish‘s market position, thereby violating the Sherman
Act
c. two companies controlled a dominant share of the market and used their power to reduce the ability of
Spanish to obtain sponsors, thereby violating the Sherman Act
d. relationship was monopolization and Clear had to sell its interest in Hispanic
e. none of the other choices
84. Spanish Broadcasting (SB) claimed that larger radio company Hispanic Broadcasting (HB) worked with its part
owner, Clear Channel, the largest radio network in the U.S. to limit its ability to compete in the market by hiring
away SB employees and making it difficult for SB to enter the Spanish-language radio market in new cities. SB
sued HB and Clear for monopolization. The court found that:
a. Clear and HB could not be proven to have conspired together, so although SB appeared to suffer damage, it
could not prove intent to monopolize
b. SB failed to show monopolization or illegal anticompetitive conduct by HB and Clear
c. SB provided adequate evidence that its share of the Spanish-language radio market was injured by predatory
behavior, so its claim against HB and Clear could proceed
d. HB and Clear controlled more than 25 percent of the radio market, thereby violating the Justice Department
limit on market share control; Clear would have to sell its share of HB
e. none of the other choices
85. Spanish Broadcasting (SB) claimed that larger radio company Hispanic Broadcasting (HB) worked with its part
owner, Clear Channel, the largest radio network in the U.S. to limit its ability to compete in the market by hiring
away SB employees and making it difficult for SB to enter the Spanish-language radio market in new cities. SB
sued HB and Clear for monopolization. The court found that:
a. Clear and HB could not be proven to have conspired together, so although SB appeared to suffer damage, it
could not prove intent to monopolize
b. SB demonstrated that its losses were likely due to a conspiracy by HB and Clear to reduce its competitive
ability, so it may be awarded treble damages for its losses
c. SB provided adequate evidence that its share of the Spanish-language radio market was injured by predatory
behavior, so its claim against HB and Clear could proceed
d. HB and Clear controlled more than 25 percent of the radio market, thereby violating the Justice Department
limit on market share control; Clear would have to sell its share of HB
e. none of the other choices
86. In Spanish Broadcasting v. Clear Channel, where Spanish sued Clear for monopolization of the Spanish-
language radio market because it owned a share of Hispanic Broadcasting, a large Spanish-language radio chain,
the court held that the:
a. SB did had a case because they could show that CC and HBC’s conduct had an anticompetitive effect on
the entire market
b. SB did not have a case because they could not show that CC and HBC’s conduct had an anticompetitive
effect on the entire market
c. CC and HBC were in violation of the Clayton Act and must face criminal charges
d. CC and HBC were not in violation of any antitrust law, but they were still liable for damages due to their
unreasonable conduct towards SB
e. CC and HBC were liable for damages treble damages due to their unreasonable conduct towards SB
87. In Spanish Broadcasting v. Clear Channel, where Spanish sued Clear for monopolization of the Spanish-
language radio market because it owned a share of Hispanic Broadcasting, a large Spanish-language radio chain,
the court held that the:
a. SB did had a case because they could show that CC and HBC’s conduct had an anticompetitive effect on
the entire market
b. CC and HBC were liable for damages treble damages due to their unreasonable conduct towards SB
c. CC and HBC were in violation of the Clayton Act and must face criminal charges
d. CC and HBC were not in violation of any antitrust law, but they were still liable for damages due to their
unreasonable conduct towards SB
e. none of the other choices are correct
88. A company that attempts to grab a larger market share by doing more functions internally, such as taking direct
control of its manufacturing or retailing:
a. is not constrained by the antitrust laws
b. is subject to restrictions under the Sherman Act
c. is constrained by the Clayton Act from becoming too large
d. will be forced by the FTC Act to end certain phases of its activities
e. none of the other choices
89. A company that attempts to grab a larger market share by doing more functions internally, such as taking direct
control of its manufacturing or retailing:
a. must receive approval from Justice or the FTC
b. is subject to restrictions under the Sherman Act
c. is constrained by the Clayton Act from becoming too large
d. will be forced by the FTC Act to end certain phases of its activities
e. none of the other choices
90. A merger occurs when:
a. two or more firms agree to charge standard prices for their goods
b. sales and manufacturing departments are combined
c. common stock is converted to preferred stock
d. sole proprietors decide to incorporate
e. two or more firms join together to form a new entity
91. A merger occurs when:
a. two or more firms agree to charge standard prices for their goods
b. sales and manufacturing departments are combined
c. common stock is converted to preferred stock
d. sole proprietors decide to incorporate
e. none of the other choices
92. A(n) involves two or more firms coming together to form a new firm.
a. merger
b. combination
c. conglomeration
d. assimilation
e. build up
93. A horizontal merger occurs when:
a. two or more firms agree to charge standard prices for their goods
b. two competitor firms become one firm
c. common stock is converted to preferred stock
d. sole proprietors decide to incorporate
e. sales and manufacturing departments are combined
94. If two firms that were previously in competition with each other merge, the merger is called a:
a. vertical merger
b. complete merger
c. competition merger
d. horizontal merger
e. final merger
95. If two firms that were previously in competition with each other merge, the merger is called a(n):
a. vertical merger
b. complete merger
c. competition merger
d. antitrust merger
e. none of the other choices are correct
96. In Standard Oil v. U.S., the federal government wanted to break up a trust of companies that controlled up to 90
percent of the petroleum products market at the turn of the century. The government relied on which law to force
this breakup?
a. the Federal Trade Commission Act
b. the Clayton Act
c. the Lanham Act
d. the Sherman Act
e. the Noerr-Pennington Act
97. In Standard Oil v. U.S., the federal government wanted to break up a trust of companies that controlled up to 90
percent of the petroleum products market at the turn of the century. The government charged the trust with:
a. illegal boycott
b. power buying
c. exclusive dealing
d. monopolization
e. none of the other choices
98. When two firms merge, they must notify the Antitrust Division of Justice or the FTC of their plan to merge at least:
a. one day before the merger
b. one month before the merger
c. three months before the merger
d. six months before the merger
e. there is no such requirement
99. When two firms merge, they must notify the Antitrust Division of Justice or the FTC of their plan to merge under
the:
a. Clayton Act
b. Lanham Act
c. Hart-Scott-Rodino Act
d. Norris-LaGuardia Act
e. Wagner Act
100. When two firms merge, they must notify the Antitrust Division of Justice or the FTC of their plan to merge under
the:
a. Clayton Act
b. Lanham Act
c. FTC Act
d. Norris-LaGuardia Act
e. none of the other choices
101. Under the two firms that plan to merge must notify the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice or the
Federal Trade Commission at least one month before the planned merger, if there is more than $50 million involved.
a. Hart-Scott-Rodino Act
b. Lanham Act
c. Clayton Act
d. Norris-LaGuardia Act
e. Wagner Act
102. The Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act requires:
a. firms to notify the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission at least
one month before a planned merger, if there is more than $50 million involved
b. firms to notify the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission at least
one month before a planned merger, if there is less than $50 million involved
c. firms to notify the Secretary of State at least one month before a planned merger, if there is more than $50
million involved
d. firms to notify Congress at least one month before a planned merger, if there is more than $50 million
involved
e. firms to notify the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission at least
6 months before a planned merger, if there is more than $50 million involved
103. The Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act requires:
a. firms to notify the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission at least
6 months before a planned merger, if there is more than $50 million involved
b. firms to notify the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission at least
one month before a planned merger, if there is less than $50 million involved
c. firms to notify the Secretary of State at least one month before a planned merger, if there is more than $50
million involved
d. firms to notify Congress at least one month before a planned merger, if there is more than $50 million
involved
e. none of the other choices are correct
104. The most common result of opposition to a merger, such as the proposed merger of Staples and Office Depot, is
that:
a. the case goes to the courts for review
b. the merger is called off
c. the two companies have to pay high fines
d. the two companies have to pay minor fines
e. the case goes to a special tribunal for review
105. The most common result of opposition to a merger, such as the proposed merger of Staples and Office Depot, is
that:
a. the case goes to the courts for review
b. the case goes to a special tribunal for review
c. the two companies have to pay high fines
d. the two companies have to pay minor fines
e. none of the other choices are correct
106. To help businesses and regulators assess the antitrust implications of a merger, the Department of Justice and FTC
created:
a. an antitrust task force
b. a commission on anticompetitive mergers
c. merger guidelines
d. the Merger and Unification Rule
e. none of the other choices
107. Merger guidelines were created by the Department of Justice and the FTC to:
a. help businesses and regulators assess the antitrust implications of a merger
b. help the courts determine what an unfair business practice is
c. help the courts decided what penalties to impose for unfair business practices
d. help the courts break up monopolies evenly
e. help businesses evade antitrust laws
108. Merger guidelines were created by the Department of Justice and the FTC to:
a. help businesses evade antitrust laws
b. help the courts determine what an unfair business practice is
c. help the courts decided what penalties to impose for unfair business practices
d. help the courts break up monopolies evenly
e. none of the other choices are correct
109. Market power is defined as:
a. the ability of one or more firms profitably to maintain prices above competitive levels for a significant period
of time
b. the ability of one or more firms to make a profit for a significant period of time
c. the ability of one or more firms to evade taxes
d. the ability of one or more firms to join together in a co–op
e. the ability of one or more firms to consistently produce a superior product
110. Market power is defined as:
a. the ability of one or more firms to consistently produce a superior product
b. the ability of one or more firms to make a profit for a significant period of time
c. the ability of one or more firms to evade taxes
d. the ability of one or more firms to join together in a co–op
e. none of the other choices are correct