Restraint of Trade

News & Analysis as of

The NCAA Ruling : How Far Should Courts Go In Redefining Market Rules?

In O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 14-16601 (9th Cir. Sept. 30, 2015), the Ninth Circuit applied the Rule of Reason to the NCAA’s amateurism rules, and concluded that while the NCAA can ban cash...more

Ninth Circuit Disallows Additional Compensation for College Athletes

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit ruled in the long awaited O’Bannon v. NCAA case, which challenged NCAA rules that bar student-athletes from “being paid for the use of their names, images, and likenesses” (NILs) – part of the...more

Ninth Circuit Clarifies Analysis of Alleged Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracies Under the Sherman Act

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the dismissal of plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint in In re Musical Instruments and Equipment Antitrust Litigation. In addressing plaintiffs’ allegations of a...more

Ninth Circuit Stays Injunction in O’Bannon v. NCAA Pending Final Decision

The Ninth Circuit issued an order last Friday staying an injunction from U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California in O’Bannon v. NCAA until it reaches a decision on the merits of the appeal....more

Camels and Dogs, Oh My! Defendant Documents Doom Health Provider Trade Association and Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Suit

Over two and one-half years after it was initially filed, an antitrust suit brought by plaintiff ambulatory surgery centers (“ASCs”) against health insurers and a trade association of competing health systems is finally...more

Wholesale Grocery Products Case Raises Questions About How and When to Apply Per Se Rule and Rule of Reason

The Supreme Court recently denied review in In re: Wholesale Grocery Products Antitrust Litigation, an action that came up from the District of Minnesota and the Eighth Circuit. Substantively, the case is a useful reminder...more

Business Litigation Reporter - May 2015

Lawsuit Dismissed Where Defendant Hulu Did Not “Knowingly” Disclose Personal Identifying Information. In In re: Hulu Privacy Litigation, 2015 WL 1503506 (N.D. Cal. March 31, 2015), the plaintiffs alleged that Hulu had...more

Tom Brady, Deflategate, and Florida Non-Competes

Free trade, in theory, increases competition. Competition forces innovation, higher productivity, better quality, lower prices or some combination of these elements to allow the marketplace to provide suitable options for...more

Following Actavis, California Supreme Court Crafts “Structured Rule of Reason” Test for Evaluating Pay-for-Delay Settlements

Last Thursday the Supreme Court of California decided In re Cipro Cases I & II, No. S198616 (Cal. May 7, 2015), holding that reverse payment, or “pay-for-delay,” settlements can be challenged as unreasonable restraints on...more

New 'Golden Rule' Removes the Peace from Employer Settlement Agreements

Under California Business and Professions Code Section 16600 (“Section 16600”), “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”...more

Court Sacks Photographers’ Antitrust Claims Against the NFL and its Member Teams

Allegations of conspiracy to restrain trade and exclusive dealing may read like textbook antitrust claims, but if the allegations are made by a plaintiff who is not an “efficient enforcer” of the antitrust laws, the complaint...more

American Quarter Horse Association Rule Against Registration of Cloned Horses Found Not To Violate Sherman Act

A Matsushita “Quick Look” Analysis Demonstrates that While Plausible, No Evidence Supports An Actionable Conspiracy or Monopoly. Abraham & Veneklasen Joint Venture et al. v. Am. Quarter Horse Ass’n, 776 F.3d 321 (5th Cir....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

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

Commonly Held Beliefs About Antitrust in America Are False

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

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

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

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

Federal Court Finds Amex’s “Anti-Steering” Merchant Rules Anticompetitive

After a seven-week bench trial in an enforcement action by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and 17 state attorneys general, U.S. District Judge Garaufis (Eastern District of New York) held that American Express Co.’s...more

Supreme Court Holds State Regulatory Board Not Immune From Antitrust Laws

On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners (“Dental Board”) is not shielded from federal antitrust law under the doctrine of state-action antitrust...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

31 Results
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.