Marvin Airlines is an established airline that is suddenly experiencing competition from
a new airline, Cheapflites, in some of its markets. Cheapflites is a “no-frills” airline
with a marketing policy that all of its tickets are fully-refundable. Marvin Airlines has
rescheduled many of its flights to leave fifteen minutes later than the Cheapflites flight
for the same route. Before the departure of each Cheapflites flight, a Marvin employee
goes to the Cheapflites waiting area with a megaphone and announces that Marvin will
allow Cheapflites passengers to fly on Marvin for $10 less than the cost of their
Cheapflites ticket, and get full service as a bonus. Because the Cheapflites tickets are
fully-refundable, most Cheapflites passengers accept the offer. Under the antitrust and
unfair competition laws, which of the following is most likely true?
A) Marvin is not in violation of any laws, unless it has monopoly power.
B) Marvin is not in violation of any laws, unless it has agreed with at least one other
airline to engage in this activity.
C) This is an illegal “tying” arrangement, because Marvin makes its offer only to those
people who also have a Cheapflites ticket.
D) Marvin is likely in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, even
if it is not in violation of the specific provisions of the antitrust laws.
E) Marvin is not in violation of any laws, because seats on a “no-frills” airline would
not be considered a substitute for seats on a “full-service” airline.
Generally, a successful plaintiff in a trade secret action can:
A) recover the profits made by the offender from the use of the trade secret.
B) recover for damages.