One issue often considered by anti-trust law is bundling: restraints of the form "you can buy A from me if and only if you also buy B from me". A particular historical concern has been that a dominant firm in market A might use such a restriction to force consumers to choose its B rather than a competitor's.

But this leaves open the question of where one draws the line between bundled products versus components of the same product:

  • If I am forced to buy a set of tyres with a car, are the tyres and car bundled, are are they just two parts of the same product?
  • If I am forced to accept a web browser with my computer operating system, are the OS and browser bundled, or is the browser really just a part of the operating system?
  • If Netflix will let me subscribe to its entire library, but not choose a la carte, is it bundling of many movies or just the sale of a single product 'a viewing subscription'?

My question is: by what principles do courts settle the question of whether AB is a single product made of two components or whether it is a bundle of two different products, A and B?

Examples of how these decisions have been made in past cases would be welcome.

n.b. I am aware of the economics of bundling and that there may be efficiency reasons for products/components to be bundled. I am interested in learning about how these economic principles (along with legal principles) are put into practice.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.