State Action Doctrine

News & Analysis as of

The State Action Doctrine: Active Supervision Reigns Supreme

On February 25, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 1502 (2015). In the 6–3 opinion, the Court held that an action taken by...more

Probationary Medicaid RCOs – How Do Physicians Respond Without Subjecting Themselves to Potential Criminal And Civil Liability?

There are now eleven organizations across the State of Alabama that have been granted probationary certification as Medicaid Regional Care Organizations or “RCO”s. Physicians have begun receiving notices from some of these...more

State Enforcement of the Consumer Financial Protection Act: State Lawsuits Offer a Sign of What’s to Come

At the end of 2014, the New York Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) became the first state regulator to settle a case using its authority to enforce the federal Consumer Financial Protection Act (“CFPA”). In Benjamin M....more

Will Georgia Certificate of Need Laws Prevent the FTC from Requiring the Divestiture of Palmyra by Phoebe Putney? Health Care...

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

Ninth Circuit Reviews Anticompetitive Effects of Physician Acquisition in Idaho: 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

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Formally Adopts “Gist of the Action” Doctrine

Pennsylvania’s “gist of the action” doctrine prohibits plaintiffs from pursuing tort claims for what are, in actuality, breach of contract claims. A variety of defendants, including those in the financial services industry,...more

Gist of the Action Doctrine May Not Bar Tort Claims Arising from Negligent Performance of Contractual Duties

On December 15, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court broke its long silence on the gist of the action doctrine when it issued its decision in Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The gist of the action doctrine precludes a plaintiff...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

Licensing Boards Face Antitrust Laws

States rely heavily on licensing boards to “police” various professions and industries. In the past, these boards have been immune from antitrust claims. But a significant case is about to impact state licensing boards...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

A Private Claim Under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act Requires the Presence of State Action, New Jersey Supreme Court Holds

In two companion cases, Perez v. Zagami, LLC, A-36-12 (May 21, 2014), and Cottrell v. Zagami, A-5-13 (May 21, 2014), the New Jersey Supreme Court confirmed that the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA) offers no private cause...more

United States Supreme Court to Revisit State Action Doctrine

Which exercise of safeguarding the people will prevail: a State’s regulation of professionals providing services to its citizens, or the antitrust agencies’ protection of consumers against anticompetitive conduct? The United...more

State Action Doctrine At The Supreme Court: Take Two

The Supreme Court has a renewed interest in the state action doctrine. After declining to clarify what types of state action are exempt from federal antitrust scrutiny for years, the Supreme Court agreed to hear its second...more

In The Wake Of Phoebe Putney, New York Passes Law Giving Antitrust Immunity To State Health Care System

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court issued its decision in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 1003 (2013), which held that the state action antitrust immunity doctrine applies only when the state legislature...more

Ongoing Tension Between Filed-Rate And State Doctrines

In a Sept. 13, 2012 Competition Law 360 article, we discussed the Third Circuit’s opinion in McCray v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., in which the Third Circuit applied the filed-rate doctrine to title insurers’ rate filings with...more

Antitrust Bulletin - Vol. 5, No. 2

In this Issue: - Focus On The Federal Trade Commission - Supreme Court Decision in FTC v. Actavis Provides Guidance on Pay-for-Delay - DOJ Prevails on Liability in eBooks Antitrust Case in the Southern District...more

FTC: Dentists Not Shielded From Teeth-Whitening Competition

In a ruling that may impact how professionals attempt to limit competition from alternative providers, the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners (Board) failed to convince the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth...more

Fourth Circuit Holds State Agencies Operated by Market Participants Are Private Actors for State Action Purposes

On May 31, 2013, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion upholding the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) determination that the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners (Board) illegally expelled non-dentists from the teeth...more

NC Dentists Can’t Stop Competition from Other Providers of Teeth-Whitening Services

The North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners (“Board”) failed to convince the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that the Board’s successful effort to “expel non-dentist providers from the North...more

State Action Immunity Does Not Apply Without Clear State Policy

The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., No. 11-1160, 568 U.S. __ (2013), makes clear that a state’s authorization to act in a manner with potentially anticompetitive...more

No “Permission To Roughhouse In Market” Found: Supreme Court Unanimously Finds For The FTC In Opposing Hospital Acquisition

In an opinion that has implications for the health care industry and beyond, the Supreme Court, in Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., last month clarified the standard for exempting “state-action”...more

Supreme Court Limits State Action Immunity In Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health Systems

In a closely watched decision, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court has reversed an 11th Circuit decision that invoked the state action doctrine to prevent the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from challenging a state hospital...more

Supreme Court Reins in State Action Immunity

Last week a unanimous Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated opinion in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., addressing the "State action" exemption from application of the federal antitrust laws for the first time...more

Merger-To-Monopoly Held Not Protected By State-Action Immunity

The U.S. Supreme Court on February 19th scaled back the "state action immunity" doctrine, siding with the Federal Trade Commission on an issue that had divided the lower courts and holding that a county Hospital Authority's...more

37 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2