Final answer:
The statement is false. Per se violations in antitrust law are considered inherently illegal and do not require a court to weigh their benefits against anticompetitive effects. Such cases are automatically deemed harmful to competition without further analysis.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that an agreement deemed a per se violation will be examined by a court to determine whether the agreement's benefits outweigh its anticompetitive effects is false. Per se violations under antitrust law are those agreements that are considered to be inherently illegal, regardless of their actual effects on the market. Examples of per se violations include price fixing, bid rigging, and market division among competitors. These types of restrictive practices are automatically considered to be harmful to competition and are not subject to a further analysis of their benefits versus their anticompetitive effects.
In contrast, other types of agreements may be evaluated under the 'rule of reason' standard, which involves a detailed analysis of the agreement's actual impact on competition and whether any anticompetitive effects are outweighed by procompetitive benefits. However, this does not apply to per se violations, which are outright prohibited by antitrust laws.