Supreme Court of the United States Federal Trade Commission

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
News & Analysis as of

Antitrust “State Action” Exemption: North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission

On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, holding that a regulatory board made up of market participants is exempt from...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

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 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

Supreme Court Finds that Regulatory Boards Composed of “Active Market Participants” are Subject to Antitrust Laws if Not Actively...

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, finding that North Carolina’s state board of dental examiners was subject to antitrust scrutiny under the Sherman Act...more

Supreme Court Rules NC Dentist Board Not Immune From Antitrust Scrutiny

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that state professional boards comprised of active market participants are not immune from antitrust laws even though the boards are formally designated as a state agency, unless the...more

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Antitrust Protection for State Professional Boards

In a 6-3 decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, the United States Supreme Court ruled today that state professional boards comprised of active professionals in the occupation...more

Supreme Court Reviews Agency Comprised of Dental Professionals in State Action Case: Health Care Antitrust Cases to Watch in 2015

Federal and state courts are expected to rule on several nationally watched antitrust health care cases during the first half of 2015. As we enter into the first week of the New Year, Nexsen Pruet associate Rachel...more

Intellectual Property and Technology News - December 2014 (Global)

In This Issue: - Fundamental Reform Ahead For European Patent Law - Patentability of Isolated Nucleic Acid - Patent Reform – Is It Working? - Right To Privacy In Japan - Supreme Court Corner - The FTC...more

The FTC gets activist post-Actavis

In 2013, the FTC left its mark on the pharmaceutical industry when the Supreme Court ruled in FTC v. Actavis that settlement agreements for patent infringement suits between branded and generic drug companies are not immune...more

State Action Doctrine Tested by Supreme Court for Second Time in Two Years

After nearly two decades of silence on the state action doctrine, on October 14, 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Court’s second case on the subject in two years: The North Carolina Board of...more

Supreme Court’s 2014-15 Term: Antitrust Case May Impact the Activities of Alcohol Industry Public/Private Organizations

On October 14, 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case that could have significant implications for hybrid public/private “regulatory” bodies. Many such bodies, like state and local wine...more

FTC Attacks Toothless Regulation of Dentists

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court heard argument in a case of national importance to health professions and the state boards that regulate them. The case, North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, addresses...more

Federal Trade Commission "Meets the Press"

Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Edith Ramirez and Debbie Feinstein, Director of the Commission's Bureau of Competition, held a thirty-minute press conference on Monday to discuss the latest foray in the Commission's...more

FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (In re Androgel Antitrust Litigation (II) (N.D. Ga.)

In FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013), the Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the district court to apply a rule of reason analysis to defendants’ reverse payment settlement. On remand, defendants Solvay and...more

Advertising Law - July 2014

Online Reviews Not Sufficient To Support Ad Claim, NAD Rules - While recognizing the benefits of using new sources of information, the National Advertising Division (NAD) decided that an advertiser’s use of aggregated...more

After Actavis: Crafting Pharmaceutical Settlements that Avoid Antitrust Scrutiny

Last year’s Supreme Court decision in FTC v. Actavis cleared the way for more antitrust challenges to settlements between generic and branded pharmaceutical companies resolving Hatch-Waxman patent litigation. As a result,...more

Court Certifies Interlocutory Appeal for the FTC v. Wyndham Matter

This blog previously discussed various aspects of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) action filed against Wyndham Worldwide Corp. (“Wyndham”) under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits “unfair and deceptive acts or...more

Pom v. Coke Will Impact Financial Services Too

Law 360, New York (June 23, 2014, 11:22 AM ET)--Legal and compliance departments, take note: the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pom Wonderful LLC v.Coca-Cola Co. confirms that even i fan institution’s conduct meets...more

105 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 5