Question

Suppose that the owners of several major mining companies secretly meet and agree to restrict indium supply in order to boost prices. As a result of the higher price of indium, a smartphone manufacturer loses billions of dollars.

This mobile company could recover three times the damages it has sustained by suing the appropriate mining companies under which of the following laws?
The Robinson–Patman Act of 1936
The Clayton Act of 1914
The Celler–Kefauver Act of 1950
The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890

Answer 1

The smartphone manufacturer could sue the mining companies under the (Option D) Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 to recover three times the damages sustained due to anticompetitive practices like restricting indium supply.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the scenario where the owners of several major mining companies agree to restrict the supply of indium to boost prices, causing a smartphone manufacturer to lose billions of dollars, the manufacturer could recover three times the amount of the damages by suing under the (Option D) Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. This act was the first antitrust law in the United States, aimed at breaking up monopolies and preventing anticompetitive practices. It provides provisions for the government to pursue legal action against monopolies or trusts that reduce competition in the marketplace. The act allows for the recovery of treble damages by parties who are harmed by such illegal activities.

The Clayton Act of 1914 and the Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950 extended the provisions of the Sherman Act, further prohibiting anticompetitive practices like price discrimination and anticompetitive mergers. However, it is the Sherman Act's provision for treble damages that directly relates to the smartphone manufacturer's ability to recover three times the loss.

Answer 2

The mobile company could recover damages under The Clayton Act of 1914, which addresses antitrust issues and promotes fair competition. (Option B)

The Clayton Act of 1914 is a federal law designed to address antitrust concerns and promote fair competition in the marketplace.

It specifically prohibits anticompetitive practices such as price discrimination, exclusive dealing, and mergers that may substantially lessen competition.

In the scenario described, if mining companies colluded to restrict indium supply, leading to higher prices and causing significant financial harm to the smartphone manufacturer, the company could potentially seek damages under the Clayton Act for antitrust violations and anti-competitive behavior.

Thus, the correct answer is Option B.