The Pabst-Blatz merger case took over a decade to resolve (1959 to 1970). In the course of that time, the Antitrust Division’s conception of how to define relevant geographic and product markets evolved. This study draws on a body of internal documents received through a freedom of information act request that track that process. Lacking any significant economic analysis and support, the initial approach was largely legalistic looking to where the merging competed without regard to whether that constituted what an economist would identify as an economically relevant market. But even at the earliest stage of investigation, there were suggestions that the choice of market areas needed an explanation. Three potentially relevant geographic markets were identified: Wisconsin, a three-state area (Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan), and a national market. It became apparent when the government sought to appeal its loss at the trial court level that the record provided little support for either of the two more localized markets. While the Court reversed the lower court decision and seemed to embrace a relaxed view of geographic market definition, the Division’s own merger standards had moved to
identifying the geographic scope of potential market power.
Bibliographic Citation
Peter Carstensen, Decoding the Meaning of “Any Section of the Country”: The Pabst-Blatz Saga, in Harry First Liber Amicorum: A Global Vision for Competition Law (Darren Bush et al. eds., 2025).
