Antitrust Litigation

News & Analysis as of

Sixth Circuit Applies Cost Screen to Tying by Differential Pricing

In Collins Inkjet Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., No. 14-3306 (6th Cir. March 16, 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that differential pricing – charging more for one product when the customer does not...more

Plausibly Alleging Non-monetary Settlements as Reverse Payments After Actavis

In In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation, No. 12 Civ. 2389 (D.N.J.), U.S. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan has confirmed his prior ruling that under the Supreme Court’s decisions in Twombly, Iqbal, and FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 133...more

March (Appellate) Madness

It has been a few months since we updated on the O’Bannon antitrust case, where federal judge Claudia Wilken ruled last summer that the NCAA’s amateurism rules violated federal antitrust laws. But this week, as the rest of...more

United States Supreme Court Rules that N.C. Dental Board Is Not Entitled to State Action Immunity from Antitrust Liability

In North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. F.T.C., No. 13-534 (2015), the United States Supreme Court ruled last week that the North Carolina Dental Board, which is comprised mainly of practicing dentists, was not...more

No State Action Antitrust Immunity for North Carolina Dental Board: Implications for the Health Care Sector

On February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the North Carolina Dental Board (“Board”) was not insulated from federal antitrust liability under the so-called “state action” doctrine when it engaged...more

State Health Regulatory Bodies Have Teeth Pulled

Old and new regulations established by state professional boards that are composed of “active market participants” such as physicians, dentists and therapists, may be subject to antitrust challenge following the U.S. Supreme...more

A New Front Opens up in the Arizona Solar Battle

On March 2, 2015, SolarCity Corporation (“SolarCity”) filed suit in the federal District Court for the District of Arizona against the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (“SRP”) alleging that SRP...more

Lessons from the U.S. v. American Express Trial

On February 18, 2015, American Express lost its court battle with the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division over the card's Non-Discrimination Provisions ("NDPs"), which prohibited merchants from steering customers to...more

Anatomy of a Provider-Merger Antitrust Challenge (Part 3)

This is the third in a six-part series discussing the Federal Trade Commission's challenges to provider mergers. Following the initial Introduction and Background (Part 1), the series discusses The Need for Early Legal Advice...more

TAXI! Uber and Lyft Sued in Memphis

Adding to a growing number of lawsuits around the country, a Memphis taxi company has filed a class action against Uber and Lyft for unlawfully interfering with its business....more

German decision on collective redress

Cartel Damage Claims, a Belgian SPV for the collection of follow-on damages in antitrust litigation, has lost an appeal against six members of the so-called German cement cartel. On 18 February 2015, the Higher Regional Court...more

Court Sets Date for Preliminary Injunction Hearing in Sysco-U.S. Foods Antitrust Case

This past Wednesday, Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia set a hearing from May 5 through May 8, with up to three additional days if necessary, to consider the FTC’s request for a...more

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Netflix Antitrust Suit

Last Friday, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a multidistrict class action brought by Netflix subscribers who claimed the company conspired with Walmart to dominate the online DVD sales and rental markets. In 2005,...more

Ninth Circuit Rejects San Jose’s Bid to Overturn Baseball’s Antitrust Exemption

Baseball is the only national sport that is exempt from the antitrust laws. The baseball exemption has existed for 92 years and withstood both court and Congressional challenges, despite the United States Supreme Court’s...more

Supreme Court Limits Protectionism by State Healthcare Licensing Boards - Boards Comprised of Active Medical Providers Are Not...

The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in N.C. State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 13-534, 2015 WL 773331 (S.Ct. February 25, 2015) makes clear that the anticompetitive actions of state...more

Supreme Court Denies Antitrust Shield for NC Dental Board

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court released a 6-3 decision in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, a case with potentially broad implications for regulation by dental and...more

Supreme Court: State Agencies Controlled by Active Market Participants Must Have Active State Supervision to Qualify for Antitrust...

In a 6–3 decision issued February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission that if active market participants control an entity—even a...more

Alert: Ninth Circuit Recognizes Efficiencies May Enhance Competition in Antitrust Challenge to Merger*

In a rare appellate opinion addressing the merits of a merger challenge, the Ninth Circuit last month sided with the Federal Trade Commission, finding that a 2012 merger of two health care providers in Idaho was likely to...more

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That to Invoke Antitrust Immunity, State Agencies Controlled by Market Participants Must Prove Active...

On Feb. 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that a state board with a controlling number of decision-makers who are active market participants in the occupation the board regulates does not enjoy state...more

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Nixes Hospital System Acquisition of Physician Practice Group: Preserving Competition Trumps Better...

On February 10, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which covers Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, California, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii and Arizona) ordered St. Luke’s Health System, Ltd. (“St....more

Supreme Court Strikes Down State Professional Boards’ Antitrust Immunity

In a ruling with significant implications for state professional licensing boards and their members, on February 25, 2015, the United States Supreme Court found that practitioner-controlled state boards do not have inherent...more

Ninth Circuit Affirms Divestiture of Consummated Physician Practice Acquisition

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed an Idaho federal district court’s decision ordering the divestiture of a physician practice group that had been acquired by a competing health system. The case, which...more

Supreme Court Update: North Carolina Board Of Dental Examiners V. Federal Trade Commission (13-534), Kansas V. Nebraska (126,...

The robed returned to action with this week with decisions in three cases, North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission (13-534), on whether state licensing boards enjoy immunity from antitrust laws...more

US Supreme Court: state agencies must be "actively supervised" to enjoy antitrust immunity – 5 tips

Do you sit on a state board or are you regulated by one? If so, the United States Supreme Court decided a case last Wednesday that directly affects you. Until recently, many assumed that a state agency or board enjoyed...more

No Active State Supervision, No Antitrust Immunity for North Carolina State Dental Board

On February 25, 2015, in a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) decision finding that the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners (Board), although a state...more

390 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 16