The main negative effects of attachment to competition are that they can lead to the closure of the market for the linked product by competitors. However, sometimes there may be objectively justified reasons to sew. For example, some technical equipment can only function optimally if it uses parts that are optimized for specific purposes. In addition, in some cases, economies of scale and thus cost savings can be achieved by linking two products. As a general rule, stringing is more harmful than advantageous to competition. A refusal to look into is a violation of antitrust law because it harms the boycotted activity by cutting it off from an establishment, a supply of products or a market. By thereby harming the boycotted activity, competing companies control or monopolize the market by unduly limiting competition. The binding effect can be achieved in various ways. The most obvious way is the contractual clause in which the supplier asks the buyer to also purchase the tied product as a condition of delivery of the binding product. However, sewing can be done in another way.
For example, a supplier may refuse to supply the binding product without the linked product. In addition, the claim to use the supplier`s components as a condition of warranty may have a watering character. Different pricing practices may also have a conditional effect: prices and discounts may be set in such a way that the buyer has no reasonable choice but to purchase both or all of the necessary products from the supplier. COFECE sanctions Cancun Airport for refusing to act in the federal ground transportation market* Cancun International Airport has implemented a number of measures to prevent new subscribers from providing services, given that the only agent who can rent and grant premises for taxi access. • The damage (…) The law allows a person to apply directly to the court if he considers that the actions of a supplier meet all the requirements of the refusal to deliver. A refusal to do business or a concerted refusal is an agreement between competing companies or between a company and an individual or company that provides that they refuse to do business with another company. A refusal to seize is contrary to the Sherman Antitrust Act and other antitrust laws and is illegal in the United States. In practice, this has given rise to similar requirements in many other areas. The publisher of a daily newspaper, Oscar Bronner, requested, in the well-known case of Oscar Bronner (C-7/97), access to the home delivery system of a competitor called Mediaprint, which is significantly larger than Bronner.
However, the ECJ considered that such a home delivery system was not a bottleneck in the same way as a port, for example. The court decided that there were other possibilities that Oscar Bronner was already using to have products delivered.. . .