On April 22 the Supreme Court held in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) does not have authority under the Federal Trade Commission Act Section 13(b) to seek, nor a court to award,...more
On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that American Express’s contractual “antisteering provisions” did not violate section 1 of the Sherman Act....more
6/28/2018
/ American Express ,
Anti-Steering Rules ,
Anticompetitive Agreements ,
Antitrust Provisions ,
Burden of Proof ,
Credit Card Surcharges ,
Merchant Fees ,
Merchants ,
Ohio v American Express ,
Rule-of-Reason Analysis ,
SCOTUS
Although the brief FTC statement is beneficial, the sweeping language contained in the policy statement gives little practical guidance to the business community.
On August 13, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued...more
On June 20, 2013, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-3 opinion in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4700 (June 20, 2013), dealt yet another blow to antitrust plaintiffs’ ability to seek...more
On March 27, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, further heightened plaintiffs’ burden in seeking class certification. The Court held that, under Rule 23, plaintiffs must “‘tie each theory of antitrust impact’...more
On February 25, 2013, Eaton Corporation (Eaton) filed a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court seeking to reverse a jury verdict finding Eaton liable for illegal monopolization. In late 1999/early 2000,...more