Confusion in Trustbusting

Businessmen are often confused by the contradictory actions of the U.S. trustbusters. Last week they had even more reason for confusion. The Federal Trade Commission ruled last month that a merger would not tend automatically to create a monopoly even though it gave 45.6% of the household steel-wool market to one company, Brillo Manufacturing Co. But last week the Justice Department sued to break a deal that would give 21% of the detergent market to Lever Bros. Co.

The U.S. wants Lever to give up its right to make All, a detergent that Lever acquired from Monsanto a year ago. Lever argued that adding All's 5% of the U.S. market to other Lever detergents (Surf, Breeze, Wisk, etc.), which hold 16%, bolstered Lever in its battle against giant Procter & Gamble, which has 55% of all U.S. detergent sales. But the trustbusters held that All should not have been sold to any of the soap industry's Big Three--Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive or Lever. Said Justice Department Antitrust Chief Victor Hansen: "We aim to protect competition, not the competitor; to support the process, no matter who gets hurt or who benefits."

No one doubted that Lever would be hurt as a competitor if the U.S. wins its case. But many businessmen wondered just how a Government victory would help protect competition.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.