References
- Aguzzoni, L., Langus, G., Motta, M. (2013). The effect of EU antitrust investigations and fines on a firm’s valuation. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 61(2), 290–338. doi:10. 1111/joie.12016.
- Baker, R., Yandle, B. (1994). Financial markets and the AT&T antitrust settlement. Eastern Economic Journal, 20(4), 429.
- Bartalevich, D. (2014). EU competition policy and U.S. antitrust: A comparative analysis. European Journal of Law and Economics, 1–22. doi:10.1007/s10657-014-9459-7.
- Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217.
- Bhagat, S., Romano, R. (2002a). Event studies and the law: Part I: Technique and corporate litigation. American Law and Economics Review, 4(1), 141.
- Bhagat, S., Romano, R. (2002b). Event studies and the law: Part II: Empirical studies of corporate law. American Law and Economics Review, 4(2), 380.
- Bittlingmayer, G. (1992). Stock returns, real activity, and the trust question. The Journal of Finance, 47(5), 1701–1730. doi:10.2307/2328993.
- Bittlingmayer, G., Hazlett, T. W. (2000). DOS Kapital: Has antitrust action against Microsoft created value in the computer industry? Journal of Financial Economics, 55(3), 329–359. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(99)00053-7.
- Burns, M. R. (1977). The competitive effects of trust-busting: A portfolio analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 85(4), 717–739.
- Chen, A. H., Merville, L. J. (1986). An analysis of divestiture effects resulting from deregulation. The Journal of Finance, 41(5), 997–1010. doi:10.2307/2328160.
- Cichello, M., Lamdin, D. J. (2006). Event studies and the analysis of antitrust. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 13(2), 229–245. doi:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijb20.
- Craig, P., De Búrca, G. (2020). EU law: Text, cases, and materials (7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Davies, J. (2018). ‘Outcome’ assessment: What exactly are we measuring? A personal reflection on measuring the outcomes from competition agencies’ interventions. De Economist, 166(1), 7–22. doi:10.1007/s10645-017-9307-6.
- Davies, S., Ormosi, P. L. (2012). A comparative assessment of methodologies used to evaluate competition policy. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 8(4), 769–803. doi: 10.1093/joclec/nhs025.
- De Vany, A., McMillan, H. (2004). Was the antitrust action that broke up the movie studios good for the movies? Evidence from the stock market. American Law and Economics Review, 6(1), 135–153. doi:10.1093/aler/ahg017.
- Decker, C. (2009). Economics and the enforcement of European competition law. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
- Dethmers, F., Blondeel, J. (2017). EU enforcement policy on abuse of dominance: Some statistics and facts. European Competition Law Review, 38(4), 147–163.
- Easterbrook, F. H. (1984). Limits of antitrust. Texas Law Review, 63(1).
- Evans, D. S., Schmalensee, R. (2002). Some economic aspects of antitrust analysis in dynamically competitive industries. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 2, 1–49. doi:10.2307/25054488.
- Federico, G. (2011). The antitrust treatment of loyalty discounts in Europe: Towards a more economic approach. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 2(3), 277–284.
- Funta, R. (2019). Economic and Legal Features of Digital Markets. Danube, 10(2), 173–183. doi:10.2478/danb-2019-0009.
- Geradin, D., Huijts, S. (2025). Abuse of dominance: Has the effects-based analysis gone too far? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 40(4), 776–786. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grae047.
- Geradin, D., Layne-Farrar, A., Petit, N. (2012). EU competition law and economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Geradin, D., Malamataris, C., Wileur, J. (2013). The EU competition law fining system. In Lianos, I., Geradin, D. (Eds.). Handbook on European Competition Law (pp. 328–361): Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Günster, A., van Dijk, M. (2016). The impact of European antitrust policy: Evidence from the stock market. International Review of Law and Economics, 46, 20–33. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2015.12.001.
- Heiner,D. A. (2012). Microsoft: A remedial success? Antitrust Law Journal,78(2),329–362.
- Hovenkamp, H. (2008). The antitrust enterprise: Principle and execution. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
- Huth, W. L., MacDonald, D. N. (1989). The impact of antitrust litigation on shareholder return. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 37(4), 411–426. doi:10.2307/2098376.
- Khan, L. M. (2017). Amazon’s antitrust paradox. The Yale Law Journal, 126(3), 710–805.
- Kolari, J. W., Pynnönen, S. (2011). Nonparametric rank tests for event studies. Journal of Empirical Finance, 18(5), 953–971. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2011.08.003.
- Kovacic, W. E. (2006). Using ex post evaluations to improve the performance of competition policy authorities. Journal of Corporation Law, 31(2), 503–547.
- Lianos, I. (2013). Competition law remedies in Europe. In Lianos, I., Geradin, D. (Eds.). Handbook on European competition law (pp. 362–455): Edward Elgar Publishing.
- MacKinlay, A. C. (1997). Event studies in economics and finance. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 13–39.
- Manne, G. A., Wright, J. D. (2011). Google and the limits of antitrust: The case against the case against Google. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 34(1), 171–244.
- Martin, S. (2015). Areeda-Turner and the treatment of exclusionary pricing under U.S. antitrust and EU competition policy. Review of Industrial Organization, 46(3), 229–252. doi:10.1007/s11151-015-9458-z.
- Motta, M. (2004). Competition policy: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Mullin, G. L., Mullin, J. C., Mullin, W. P. (1995). The competitive effects of mergers: Stock market evidence from the U.S. Steel dissolution suit. The RAND Journal of Economics, 26(2), 314–330.
- Neven, D. J., Zenger, H. (2008). Ex post evaluation of enforcement: A principal-agent perspective. De Economist, 156(4), 477–490. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10645-008-9105-2.
- Page, W. H., Childers, S. J. (2012). Antitrust, innovation, and product design in platform markets: Microsoft and Intel. Antitrust Law Journal, 78(2), 363–395.
- Patell, J. M. (1976). Corporate forecasts of earnings per share and stock price behavior: Empirical test. Journal of Accounting Research, 14(2), 246–276. doi:10.2307/2490543.
- Polinsky, A. M., Shavell, S. (2000). The economic theory of public enforcement of law. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(1), 45–76.
- Posner, R. A. (1974). Exclusionary practices and the antitrust laws. The University of Chicago Law Review, 41(3), 506–535. doi:10.2307/1599177.
- Salinger, M. A., Levinson, R. J. (2014). Economics and the FTC’s Google investigation. Review of Industrial Organization.
- Van den Bergh, R., Camesasca, P. D. (2006). European competition law and economics: A comparative perspective. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2nd edition.
- Veljanovski, C. (2014). A statistical analysis of U.K. Antitrust enforcement. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 10(3), 711–738. doi:10.1093/joclec/nhu004.
- Venit, J. S. (2003). Brave new world: The modernization and decentralization of enforcement under Articles 81 and 82 of the EC treaty. Common Market Law Review, 40(3), 545–580.
- Wils, W. P. J. (2006). Optimal antitrust fines: Theory and practice. World Competition: Law and Economics Review, 29(2), 183–208.
- Wils, W. P. J. (2007). European Commission’s 2006 Guidelines on Antitrust Fines: A Legal and Economic Analysis. World Competition: Law and Economics Review, 30(2), 197–229.
- Wright, J. D. (2011). Does antitrust enforcement in high tech markets benefit consumers? Stock price evidence from FTC v. Intel. Review of Industrial Organization, 38(4), 387–404. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11151-011-9297-5.
Language: English
Page range: 36 - 55
Submitted on: Feb 1, 2025
Accepted on: Apr 13, 2026
Published on: May 21, 2026
Published by: European Research University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Related subjects:
© 2026 France Ocepek, published by European Research University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.