Predatory pricing practices can lead to attempts to monopolize the market, and resulting antitrust claims. Companies with dominant or significant market shares are more vulnerable to antitrust requirements. However, because antitrust law is ultimately designed to benefit consumers, the US Supreme Court has placed high barriers to antitrust lawsuits based on predatory pricing theory. The court requires plaintiffs to demonstrate the likelihood that pricing practices affect not only competitors, but competition in the market as a whole, in order to establish that there is a significant likelihood that the monopolization attempt will succeed. If there is a chance that market participants will not allow the predator to recoup their investment through ultra-competitive pricing, then there is no chance of success and the antitrust suit will fail. In addition, as previously mentioned here, in order for prices to be predatory, they must be below the costs of the seller.
However, the US Department of Justice argues that modern economic theory based on strategic analysis considers predatory pricing as a real problem and argues that the courts are outdated and too skeptical.