Latest Posts › Sherman Act

Share:

Are the FTC and DOJ Losing Antitrust Battles but Gaining Ground?

The Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division — for the third time in the span of a year — recently failed to convince a jury that alleged agreements to fix or stabilize labor markets should be punished criminally. It...more

FTC Claims Broader Section 5 Powers in New Policy Statement; Provides Limited Practical Guidance

On November 10, 2022, the FTC issued a Policy Statement Regarding the Scope of Unfair Methods of Competition Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act that revisited the Commission’s decades-long enforcement...more

Is the DOJ’s First Criminal Monopolization Case in Decades More Bark Than Bite?

In October, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division announced its first criminal attempted monopolization charges in more than 40 years. In the case, U.S. v. Zito, Nathan Nephi Zito, the owner of a Montana paving...more

Recent Antitrust Developments Underscore Administration’s Focus on Labor Markets

As the Biden Administration enters its second year, the White House and antitrust enforcers at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) continue to focus on the intersection between antitrust and...more

DOJ Brings First Criminal Challenges to Wage-Fixing and No-Poach Agreements

More than four years after the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jointly released the Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals in 2016 (Antitrust Guidance), the DOJ has...more

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Sweeping Injunction Against Qualcomm and Reins In Expansive Interpretation of Sherman Act

On August 11, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decisively reversed the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC or Commission) controversial district court win challenging Qualcomm’s licensing practices. In...more

Recent Trends in No-Poach Litigation

Federal district courts around the country continue to grapple with how to analyze “no-poach” agreements — whereby two or more companies agree not to hire or recruit each other’s workers — under the antitrust laws. Beginning...more

'Titans' of Antitrust Policy Clash Over No-Poach Agreements

Legal battles over the antitrust treatment of no-poach agreements continue to escalate with new district court decisions and new pronouncements from two “titans” of antitrust policy, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the...more

No-Poach Update: DOJ Seeks to Rein In Franchise Suits

Evolving antitrust treatment of so-called “no-poach” agreements continues to offer important guidance for company counsel and human resources professionals. Over the past two years, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has...more

Spotlight on No-Poach Agreements Continues, Expands to New Industries

In recent weeks, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson has continued to expand his efforts to eradicate the use of no-poach agreements by employers. The targets of his investigation are companies that have included...more

Shifting Enforcement of No-Poaching Agreements

Fifteen months after the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its intention to criminally pursue no-poaching agreements — in which competitors agree not to recruit or hire each other’s employees —...more

Third Circuit Holds Food Manufacturers Have Standing to Seek Damages From Egg Suppliers

Last week, in In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision holding that purchasers of processed egg products have standing to seek damages from egg...more

12 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide