Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits anyone from attempting to monopolize,

monopolizing, or conspiring to monopolise any part of interstate or international trade

or business. Any US trade or business monopoly is illegal. This includes local and
global business. This section targets the unilateral behaviour of a single firm or firms
with monopoly power or a dangerous probability of obtaining such power, unlike
Section 1 of the Sherman Act or Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which both deal with
two or more firms coming together to restrain trade. This part addresses the unilateral
behaviour of a single firm or firms with monopoly power or a high risk of gaining it.
This section covers the unilateral actions of a single company or firms with
monopolistic power or a high risk of gaining it. Monopolies can raise prices and cut
output, hurting consumers. The US Law on abuse of dominance lacks detailed
guidelines on market assessment and enforcement priorities in applying Article 102 of
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to abusive exclusionary
conduct by dominant undertakings. However, EU law bans abusive exclusionary
conduct by dominant undertakings. US law uses a more general method to determine
whether a dominant undertaking has engaged in abusive exclusionary behaviour. In
the US, monopoly power can be proven by showing the company's real price control
or market exclusion. Thus, the company's actions must be proven. Indirect proof can
also prove monopolistic power. Indirect or circumstantial proof of the defendant's
ability to control prices or exclude competitors suggests monopoly power. Because
direct proof may be scarce. Firsthand proof is hard to find. The relevant market is the
most essential part of the US Section 2 analysis, which takes into account both
product and geographic dimensions. The related product market should focus on
finding reasonable interchangeable goods that customers would switch to based on
price, use, and quality. Supply-side substitutability occurs when producers can simply
switch markets. In the case of a price rise or other market constraint, such as a
shortage, all physical territories that consumers could easily move to for alternative
sources of supply are considered when defining a geographic market. This accounts
for the fact that consumers can easily move to these areas if prices rise or other market
constraints arise. The pondering set is this group. The US and EU approaches to
market importance were similar.
Direct proof like price control and market exclusion can prove US monopoly power.
This is how national monopoly power is determined. Evidence of monopoly power is
usually vague or circumstantial. The defendant's market stake and entry hurdles are
examples. However, direct proof is rare, so monopoly power is usually inferred from
indirect or circumstantial evidence.

When investigating monopolisation or attempted monopolization, defining the

relevant market is crucial. Without a market description, the defendant's ability to
limit or eliminate competition cannot be assessed. This is the cause. Because of this,
the US Section 2 analysis requires the evaluation of the suitable market, which can
completely change the case. The district court estimated Alcoa's market share at 33%,
but the circuit court, after revising the relevant market, found that it was well over
90%. The district court redefined the relevant market to reach this result.

When defining the relevant market, product and geographic aspects must be
considered. The relevant product market should focus on finding acceptable
interchangeable products that consumers would move to based on price, use, and
quality. Supply-side substitutability occurs when companies can easily switch
markets. When defining the geographic market, it is important to consider all of the
physical territories where consumers could easily move to find alternative sources of
supply if costs rose or there was another market constraint. If there was another
market constraint, consumers could move to these areas to find alternative supplies.

Market share is another important factor when proving US dominant power. A "bright
line" test, in which a market share of 50% or more is sufficient proof of monopoly
power, is still used by many lower courts, but some industry experts have criticised it
as too simplistic. Despite many lower judges using it. The Department of Justice and
the Federal Trade Commission agree that market share is only one of many factors to
examine when determining monopoly power. The size and number of established
rivals, the market's dominance, the ease with which new businesses can join the
market, and market concentration are other factors to consider.