An increasing number of monopolization cases have been constructed around the notion of “must-have” items: products that distributors must carry to “compete effectively.” Motivated by these cases, we consider a multiproduct setting where upstream suppliers sell their products through competing distributors offering one-stop-shopping convenience to consumers. We show the emergence of products that distributors cannot afford not to carry if their rivals do. A supplier of such products can exploit this must-have property, along with tying and exclusivity provisions, to monopolize adjacent, otherwise-competitive markets. Policy interventions that ban tying or exclusivity provisions may prove ineffective or even backfire. (JEL D43, K21, L13, L14, L42, L81)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ide et al. (2024) studied this question.