Which two standards do courts apply in evaluating antitrust practices?

When courts evaluate antitrust practices, they primarily apply two legal standards: the "Rule of reason" and "illegal per se." The "Rule of reason" is a comprehensive analysis approach that considers the competitive effects of a business practice in light of the market context. It examines whether the practice promotes or suppresses competition, taking into account various factors like market power and the potential benefits versus harms of the conduct in question.

On the other hand, certain practices are considered "illegal per se," meaning they are inherently harmful to competition and do not require detailed analysis to determine their legality. These practices typically include obvious anti-competitive behaviors such as price-fixing, market division, and output restriction, which are seen as damaging regardless of the context.

The combination of these two standards allows courts to balance the need for competitive markets against the realities of business practices, ensuring that only truly harmful activities are penalized without unnecessarily stifling legitimate competition. Understanding these legal benchmarks is crucial for entities navigating antitrust regulations, as they determine how business behaviors are assessed in the eyes of the law.