1 of 27 checkable references need attention · checked 2026-08-28
At the dated check, the references listed below either did not resolve in
Crossref or DataCite, or carried a retraction notice. Each one is shown with the
registry record that put it there.
23 without a DOI — not checked. A reference
deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked
set, and this line discloses that.
References needing attention
does not resolve to a known work10.1787/clp-v5-art8-en
Methodological Issues of the “More Economic Approach” to Unilateral Exclusionary Conduct. Proposal of Analysis Starting from the Treatment of Retroactive Rebates
Michelin II: A Per Se Rule Against Rebates by Dominant Companies?
The 23 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedAn experimental investigation of Article 82 rebate schemes
no DOI — not checkedref4
no DOI — not checkedCan bundled discounting increase consumer prices without excluding rivals?
no DOI — not checkedThe elusive antitrust standard on bundling in Europe and in the United States in the aftermath of the Microsoft cases
no DOI — not checkedTying, bundled discounts, and the death of the single monopoly profit theory
no DOI — not checkedref13
no DOI — not checkedref16
no DOI — not checkedGuidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings
no DOI — not checkedRebates Revisited: Anti-Competitive Effects and Exclusionary Abuse Under Article 82
no DOI — not checkedRebates under Article 82 EU: Navigating uncertain waters
no DOI — not checkedThe economics of loyalty discounts and antitrust law in the United States
no DOI — not checkedEvaluating bundled discounts
no DOI — not checkedShould predatory pricing rules immunize exclusionary discounts?
no DOI — not checkedref35
no DOI — not checkedProkent/Tomra, a textbook case? Abuse of dominance under perfect information
no DOI — not checkedref39
no DOI — not checkedref42
no DOI — not checkedAssessment of conduct. Draft competition law guideline for consultation. OFT 414a
no DOI — not checkedref44
no DOI — not checkedDefining legitimate competition: How to clarify pricing abuses under Article 82 EC
no DOI — not checkedref47
no DOI — not checkedref48
no DOI — not checkedref50
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this
work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none
carried a retraction notice at that time. It says nothing about the quality, findings,
or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references deposited without a DOI.
checked 2026-08-28 — re-checked daily as this page is visited;
titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record
Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The
badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.