consumers, or the number of purchases by those consumers, will increase in the ban’s absence. Indeed, the State’s own expert conceded that “plaintiffs’ expectation of realizing additional profits through price advertising has no necessary relationship to increased overall consumption.” 829 F. Supp., at 549. Moreover, we attach little significance to the fact that some studies suggest that people budget the amount of money that they will spend on alcohol. 39 F. 3d 5, 7 (CA1 1994). These studies show only that, in a competitive market, people will tend to search for the cheapest product in order to meet their budgets. The studies do not suggest that the amount of money budgeted for alcohol consumption will remain fixed in the face of a marketwid l Aluminum, Inc., 445 U. S. 97 (1980) (<HOLDING>). It would be anomalous if the First Amendment
holding that same activity violated  2 of the sherman act holding ncaas television restrictions violated  1 of the sherman act holding that uniteds lease provisions violated  4 of the sherman act holding ban violated the sherman act holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act