If a showing of consumer harm is now to be required for (1) the per se rule and/or (2) a finding of unreasonableness under the rule of reason, it would appear that a good deal of boycott precedent is effectively overruled. But if it isn't, should it be, or is there any reason why an exception to the consumer welfare model should be carved out for some kinds of boycotts? Should prior cases be ignored or overruled? And how are lower federal courts now dealing with the question of consumer harm in concerted refusal to deal cases, given the paucity of guidance from the Supreme Court on the question? These are all questions which this Article will seek to address.
C. Paul Rogers,
Consumer Welfare and Group Boycott Law,
SMU L. Rev.