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
Many defendants with no connection to the jurisdiction in which they are sued may assert a personal jurisdiction defense to avoid defending against claims in far-flung courts. In cases brought under state law, this defense is...more
Last week, the Supreme Court declined cert for the Fourth Circuit’s Brewbaker decision, leaving undisturbed the ruling that heightens the burden on antitrust prosecutors when the target companies have a hybrid...more
On June 27, 2024, a jury in the United States District Court for the Central District of California rendered a multibillion-dollar verdict in favor of restaurant/bar owners and individual customers and against the National...more
The US Supreme Court on April 22, 2024 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in the closely watched antitrust case United States Soccer Federation Inc. v. Relevent Sports LLC. The decision raises important questions...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
The Name, Image, and Likeness (“NIL”) era of college sports has brought headlines, rumors, and dollar signs, but little in the way of NCAA enforcement. The NCAA’s seeming reluctance to take action against perceived violators...more
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was originally thought of as "force for securing decency on the Internet," as the late Judge Robert A. Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit explained in a...more
On July 9, 2021, just days into her tenure as Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) Chair, Lina Khan led the Commission’s charge to rescind the agency’s 2015 policy statement (2015 Statement) on its approach to...more
Joint venture analysis remains an area of confusion in antitrust law. Courts have tended to elevate form over substance, misapply economic principles, and lose focus of the basic purposes of the antitrust laws, i.e.,...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
On November 15, 2018, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice settled a two-and-a-half year long lawsuit against Atrium Health, a North Carolina hospital system formerly known as the Carolinas HealthCare...more
In a 5-4 decision in Ohio v. American Express, the Supreme Court affirmed that the anti-steering provisions of American Express’s merchant agreement do not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act....more
The Supreme Court delivered a big win to American Express last week, finding that the anti-steering rules AmEx imposes on merchants do not violate the federal Sherman Act....more
On June 25, 2018 the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that American Express’s antisteering rules do not violate federal antitrust laws. In reaching this conclusion the Court determined that, for two-sided markets like...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued two decisions today: Ohio v. American Express Co., No 16-1454: American Express (Amex), like all credit-card companies, operates a transaction network that serves two groups:...more
A violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act requires an agreement between two or more separate economic entities. In Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984), the Supreme Court of the United States...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
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari in a case that will give pharmaceutical companies pause when considering whether to settle patent challenges under Hatch-Waxman. The Supreme Court’s...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
On March 16, 2015, AU Optronics Corporation America Inc. (AU Optronics) and Motorola Mobility LLC separately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) and the extent to which...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
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