is not antitrust

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "is not antitrust" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in discussions or analyses regarding legal or economic matters, particularly when distinguishing something from antitrust laws or principles. Example: "The proposed merger is not antitrust, as it does not significantly reduce competition in the market."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Formal & Business

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

1 human-written examples

That is not antitrust".

The New York Times

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

55 human-written examples

Still, dominance alone is not an antitrust problem.

The New York Times - Tech

Strictly speaking, privacy is not an antitrust issue".

The New York Times - Tech

It is not an antitrust violation for a powerful company to gain a dominant share of one market and then expand into other markets.

The New York Times - Tech

"While a deal with News Corporation is not an antitrust problem, it's an enormous nightmare for consumers," Mr. Kimmelman said, noting that the News Corporation already wields influence in the television business by dint of its chain of broadcast stations, its Fox broadcasting network and its Fox Sports and Fox News cable channels.

The New York Times

"Mere possession of monopoly power is not an antitrust offense," explained legal scholars Joshua D. Wright and Geoffrey A. Manne in a deliciously informative piece about the challenges of labeling Google a monopoly.

TechCrunch

While the algorithm changes may induce some sites to modify or increase their advertising spending, that in itself is not an antitrust violation.

Huffington Post

"This is not a complex antitrust suit," Schiller said, adding, "It's not going to take years.

The New York Times - Sports

A. Monopoly Power While merely possessing monopoly power is not itself an antitrust violation, it is a necessary element of a monopolization charge.

The New York Times

"With rare exceptions, like Microsoft and the Time Warner-AOL deal, the public is not engaged in antitrust issues," he said.

The New York Times

Getting Google to open up its advertising platform, in particular, is likely to make it less profitable and leave more money on the table for its rivals.It is not just on antitrust that Google is facing rising complaints.

The Economist

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When stating that an action or situation "is not antitrust", be sure to specify the exact reasons why it does not violate antitrust laws. Provide details that clarify the absence of anti-competitive behavior.

Common error

Do not assume that a company's large market share or dominance automatically equates to an antitrust violation. Dominance alone "is not antitrust"; anticompetitive conduct must also be present.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "is not antitrust" functions as a declarative statement used to assert the absence of antitrust implications or violations in a specific situation or action. Ludwig's analysis shows that it's often used in legal or economic contexts to clarify that something does not contravene antitrust regulations.

Expression frequency: Common

Frequent in

News & Media

60%

Formal & Business

25%

Science

5%

Less common in

Academia

3%

Encyclopedias

2%

Reference

2%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "is not antitrust" is used to assert that a particular situation or action does not violate antitrust laws. Ludwig confirms its grammatical correctness and frequent use in news, business, and legal contexts. While dominance in a market alone "is not antitrust", it's crucial to demonstrate the absence of anti-competitive conduct when making such a statement. Alternatives include "does not constitute antitrust" or "is outside the scope of antitrust". Proper use clarifies that an action does not restrain trade or create a monopoly, dispelling concerns about anticompetitive effects.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

does not constitute antitrust

Replaces "is not" with "does not constitute", emphasizing the lack of characteristics of antitrust.

is not a violation of antitrust law

Adds "law" to clarify the legal aspect of antitrust.

is outside the scope of antitrust

Indicates that something falls outside the boundaries or concerns of antitrust.

is distinct from antitrust

Emphasizes the separateness or difference from antitrust matters.

does not fall under antitrust regulations

Specifies the type of legal oversight being referenced.

is not subject to antitrust provisions

Indicates that something isn't governed by antitrust provisions.

is unaffected by antitrust laws

Highlights the lack of impact from antitrust laws.

is not in conflict with antitrust rules

Indicates compliance or non-interference with antitrust regulations.

is beyond the purview of antitrust

Suggests that something exceeds the authority or concern of antitrust.

is separate from antitrust considerations

Highlights the distinction between the subject and antitrust concerns.

FAQs

When is something considered "antitrust"?

Something is considered "antitrust" when it involves actions that restrain trade, reduce competition, or lead to monopolization in a market. Actions like price-fixing, bid-rigging, and exclusionary conduct can be considered violations of antitrust laws.

What are some synonyms for "is not antitrust"?

Alternatives to "is not antitrust" include phrases like "does not violate antitrust law", "is distinct from antitrust", or "is outside the scope of antitrust regulations".

What factors determine if a merger "is not antitrust"?

A merger "is not antitrust" if it does not substantially lessen competition or create a monopoly. Regulators consider factors like market concentration, potential entry barriers, and efficiencies gained from the merger.

How does dominance differ from an antitrust violation?

Mere dominance in a market "is not antitrust". An antitrust violation occurs when a dominant company engages in specific actions to harm competition, such as predatory pricing or exclusive dealing arrangements. Dominance alone is insufficient; there must be anticompetitive behavior.