Post-1911 antitrust law turned against ordinary practices without requiring monopoly size

Evidence

After Standard Oil, businesses were more often targeted that were not of great relative size, suggesting that enormous size coupled with abusive practices was not necessary for finding illegality. Instead, as Director and Levi pointed out, various types of practices such as tying arrangements, vertical integration, and exclusive dealing were increasingly declared either per se illegal or highly questionable without the consideration of monopoly power. — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1137

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to standard anti-monopoly historiography and to the emerging Chicago School critique of antitrust that Director later institutionalized at the Mont Pèlerin-adjacent law-and-economics network. — connects to: Chicago antitrust reformers rejected per se illegality for exclusionary business practices — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 1082; Vertical integration was once treated as evidence of monopolization intent in antitrust law — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 1105; Chicago School antitrust argued monopoly power could not spread via listed abusive practices — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 1132 (+1 more)