Abstract
Part II of this Comment discusses the contested development of the consumer harm standard under the antitrust laws, the economic underpinnings of monopsonies as opposed to traditional monopolies, and the problems that courts have faced (or more frequently ignored) when deciding monopsony cases under the Sherman Act. Part III analyzes how courts that have abandoned a strict requirement of consumer harm are better able to conform with the true purpose of the Sherman Act. Part IV recommends that the U.S. Supreme Court must formally disavow the consumer harm standard in monopsony cases, or Congress must amend the Sherman Act to account for the fundamental differences between monopolies and monopsonies to better protect workers and small suppliers.