Which of the following is a possible consequence of a per se violation under antitrust laws?

In the context of antitrust laws, a per se violation refers to activities that are inherently illegal, such as price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocation, without needing to demonstrate that these practices have anticompetitive effects. The consequence of a per se violation is significant because, due to the nature of these activities being clearly harmful to competition, they result in automatic legal consequences.

When an arrangement is determined to be a per se violation, it can lead to the automatic disqualification of that arrangement. This means that the conduct is immediately illegal and cannot be justified or excused, regardless of any purported benefits that might arise from it. The law takes a strong stance against these clear violations to protect consumer welfare and maintain fair competition in the marketplace.

In contrast, the other options do not accurately capture the essence of the consequences related to per se violations. Execution of contracts and court approval may apply in different contexts or scenarios but do not directly address the automatic nature of the consequences stemming from a per se violation. Monetary penalties are certainly a potential outcome, but they are not the sole consequence, as the arrangement is simply deemed invalid without further requirements or justifications.