From Cell Phones to Tractors: The Right to Repair Movement Drives On — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Daily Compliance News: May 12, 2025, The Corruption in the Broad Daylight Edition
Daily Compliance News: May 1, 2025, The 100 Days of Corruption Edition
Daily Compliance News: April 23, 2025, The R-E-S-P-E-C-T Edition
Business Better Podcast Episode: Bridging Campuses: Legal Insights on Education Industry Consolidation – Mergers, Acquisitions, and Antitrust
Antitrust Insights for Private Equity Navigating the New Administration's Policies — PE Pathways Podcast
12 Days of Regulatory Insights: Day 11 – State AGs on the Antitrust Frontline — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
12 Days of Regulatory Insights: Day 8 - Inside the Texas AG's Office — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
12 Days of Regulatory Insights: Day 3 - State AG Oversight in the Health Care Industry — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Episode 341 -- DOJ Charges Visa with Monopolization and Exclusionary Conduct in the Debit Card Market
Fierce Competition Podcast | Antitrust Challenges in Organized Sports: How They Play Out in the EU, UK and US
Podcast: Key Changes in Finalized Antitrust Merger Guidelines – Diagnosing Health Care
The Changing Landscape of State AG Antitrust Enforcement — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Fierce Competition Podcast | Takeaways From the Illumina-Grail Merger Challenge Saga
#WorkforceWednesday: Bracket-Busting Trade Secret and Non-Compete Disputes in Sports - Employment Law This Week® - Spilling Secrets Podcast
State AGs File NIL Antitrust Lawsuits — Highway to NIL Podcast
Fierce Competition Podcast | Private Equity Under the Antitrust Microscope
JONES DAY TALKS® - Charting the Course: Antitrust's Past, Present, and Future in Labor Markets
State AG Pulse | America’s Pastime Unites AGs
What You Need to Know About the New FTC and DOJ HSR Changes
As the Oval Office and Congress flip to Republican control, we expect more state AG-led efforts to impact public policy. Shortly after the New Year, we gathered together attorneys from our State Attorneys General team to...more
In February of this year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought an administrative complaint to block Kroger Company’s $24.6 billion merger with Albertsons Companies, Inc., citing antitrust concerns. On August 19, 2024,...more
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a district court decision upholding the validity and enforceability of a judgment-sharing agreement (JSA) among defendants in an antitrust civil price fixing action....more
In perhaps the first case addressing transfer of a federal antitrust action to an MDL court, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Alexandria Division of the EDVA recently denied a motion to transfer an antitrust action against Google...more
An important development in the fast-changing landscape of intercollegiate athletics’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) rules may occur, when NCAA v. Alston is heard by the United States Supreme Court in March, with the Court’s...more
Last week, in FTC v. AbbVie et al., the Third Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit in holding that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was not authorized to seek disgorgement as a remedy under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act –...more
On February 26, 2018, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Ohio, et. al. v. American Express Company, et. al., No. 16-1454. This case involves allegations that American Express unlawfully restrained trade in...more
The retail industry should have great interest in a case set to be decided the Supreme Court this term, the outcome of which will affect the terms and conditions of credit card acceptance for all merchants. The Supreme...more
On Monday, October 17, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Second Circuit’s decision in Ohio v. American Express, suggesting that the Court may be ready to shed additional light on the “rule of reason” test...more
Last month the Supreme Court declined to accept an appeal for two related antitrust cases involving an international price-fixing cartel. The cases come from different circuits, one was criminal and the other civil, but they...more
The Supreme Court has ruled that when an oversight mechanism created by a State —here a State Board — is under the control of those it was supposed to be regulating (sometimes referred to by economists as “regulatory...more
Today the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in two cases, Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics et al. and Hsiung and AU Optronics Corp. America Inc. v. United States, declining to resolve a closely watched...more
AU Optronics Corp. (“AUO”) filed a petition for a writ of certiori in Hui Hsiung, et al. v. United States of America on March 16, 2015, seeking Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit’s 2014 decision that upheld the...more
The first lawsuit, in what may be a wave of antitrust litigation challenging professional board regulations in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade...more
The Supreme Court once again showed that, when it comes to the antitrust laws, the consumer is king. In Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, the Court was asked to decide where state antitrust laws end and federal regulation begins. The...more
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
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
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
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
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
The U.S. Supreme Court, on February 25, 2015, reaffirmed that state professional boards controlled by same-profession individuals which are not "actively supervised" do not enjoy Parker v. Brown-based state action immunity...more
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
The Supreme Court will begin its new term on Monday, October 6, 2014. Although the Court has not yet accepted for review any headline-grabbing cases of the type we’ve seen in recent years in such areas as campaign finance,...more
Shanghai High People’s Court Rules That Resale Price Maintenance Agreement Constitutes Monopolistic Agreement - The Shanghai High People’s Court recently made available its Aug. 1, 2013 final judgment overruling the...more
On October 24, 2013, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed what we believe is the first post-Phoebe Putney statute (see FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health Sys., Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1003 (2013)), extending the State’s antitrust immunity to...more