Predatory Pricing vs Limit Pricing
Predatory Pricing and Limit Pricing are two Market Structures & Industrial Organization concepts in AP Economics that students often mix up. Predatory pricing is cutting price below cost to drive rivals out of a market, with the plan of raising price once the competition is gone. Limit pricing is when an established firm sets a price low enough that entry would be unprofitable, giving up profit now to keep potential rivals out. Here is how they compare side by side.
Predatory pricing runs in two stages. In the sacrifice stage the firm sells below its own cost and absorbs losses that a rival with shallower pockets cannot match; in the recoupment stage, once the rival exits, it raises price and earns back more than it lost. The whole plan collapses without barriers to entry, because a high post-exit price simply invites a fresh competitor and the predator never recovers the money. That is why economists have long argued predation is rarer than it looks, and why courts usually demand proof of both below-cost pricing and a realistic path to recoupment. Aggressive discounting by a firm that genuinely has lower costs is not predation; it is the competition the law exists to protect.
An incumbent charging the profit-maximizing price advertises how attractive its market is. Limit pricing instead sets a price just below the level at which a potential entrant could cover its own average total cost, so the newcomer projects a loss and stays away. The strategy only works if the incumbent genuinely has a cost advantage, usually from economies of scale or from an established volume the entrant could not match at first. The incumbent trades lower profit today for a longer run of profit without rivals. This is not predatory pricing: a limit price still covers the incumbent's own costs and is aimed at firms that have not entered, while predatory pricing goes below cost to force out a rival already in the market.
Predatory vs Limit Pricing: Below Your Own Cost or Below the Entrant's
| Predatory Pricing | Limit Pricing | |
|---|---|---|
| Price against the seller's own cost | Below it, so money is lost on every unit | Above it, so the firm still profits on every unit |
| Who it is aimed at | A rival already selling in the market | A firm considering entry |
| When it is used | After entry, to force an exit | Before entry, to prevent one |
| Where the money comes from | Losses now, repaid by higher prices later | Profit given up permanently and never recovered |
| What makes it work | Deeper reserves and a credible threat to do it again | A cost advantage the entrant cannot match |
| Legal exposure | Can be attacked as monopolizing conduct | Generally lawful, since a profitable low price is competition |
| What buyers end up with | Cheap for a while, then dearer than before | A price permanently below the monopoly level |
The whole distinction is whether the posted price clears the seller's own cost
Take an incumbent whose marginal cost is 8 dollars a unit, and a would be entrant that at its smaller scale would face costs of 12 dollars a unit. Left alone, the incumbent would post 15 dollars and sell 60,000 units, earning 7 dollars a unit, or 420,000 dollars. That price is also an invitation, since a firm with 12 dollar costs can undercut 15 dollars and still profit. So the incumbent posts 11 dollars instead. It now earns 3 dollars on each of 100,000 units, or 300,000 dollars, giving up 120,000 dollars against what it could have had. Entry at 11 dollars would lose the newcomer a dollar on every unit, so nobody comes. That is limit pricing, and every unit is still sold above cost. Predatory pricing is the other case. The rival is already inside, and the incumbent posts 6 dollars, two dollars under its own cost, losing 200,000 dollars across 100,000 units. Nothing about that is profitable on its own terms. It pays only if the rival quits, the price can climb back toward 15 dollars, and the incumbent then earns back the 200,000 dollars it burned. Courts call that second step recoupment, and it is where most predatory pricing claims die.
Condemning low prices too readily protects rivals rather than buyers
A plaintiff bringing a predation claim generally has to show two things: that the price was below an appropriate measure of the seller's cost, and that the seller could realistically recover the losses afterward. Both parts are strict on purpose. Cost is the harder half, because marginal cost cannot be read off a filing, so average variable cost usually stands in for it, and a firm can be selling below average total cost while still covering the cost of each extra unit. Recoupment is the half that fails most often. If entry into the market is cheap, the price cannot stay high long enough to repay the war chest, so the strategy never made sense and probably was not predation at all. That is also why predation is only plausible for a firm that already holds real /glossary/market-power. Limit pricing survives all of this untouched. The price stays above cost, buyers pay less than they otherwise would, and what keeps the entrant out is the incumbent's cost advantage rather than any exclusionary act. A legal rule aggressive enough to catch limit pricing would end up punishing firms for charging low prices, which is the outcome competition law exists to produce. See /glossary/barriers-to-entry for what gives an incumbent that advantage.
Frequently asked questions
Is predatory pricing illegal?
Predatory pricing can be unlawful as monopolizing conduct, but it is hard to prove, since a plaintiff generally must show the price fell below an appropriate measure of the seller's cost and that the seller could realistically recover those losses later. Courts are cautious because low prices are usually the thing competition is meant to deliver. Limit pricing, which stays above cost, is not treated as predation.
What is the difference between predatory pricing and limit pricing?
Predatory pricing sets a price below the seller's own cost to drive an existing rival out, while limit pricing sets a price above the seller's cost but below what an entrant could survive, so no one enters. Predation loses money now in the hope of charging more later. Limit pricing earns money the whole time, just less than the monopoly price would.
Why is limit pricing legal?
Limit pricing is generally lawful because every unit is still sold above cost, and a rule against profitable low prices would punish the exact behavior buyers gain from. The incumbent gives up some profit to keep the market to itself, and customers pay less than they would if entry were impossible. What deters the entrant is a cost advantage, not an agreement or an act of exclusion.
Live Monopoly graph. Drag the curves, or open the full version.
Get AP Econ exam tips in your inbox
Occasional emails with study tips, new interactive graphs, and exam-season reminders. Free, no spam.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. Read our privacy policy.
Keep track of what you have studied
A free EconLearn account adds progress tracking, your quiz history, and achievements. Studying here is free either way, and there is nothing to pay for as a student.
Create a free accountAlready have one? Sign in
Last updated