Podcast - The Briefing: Unmasking Luxury Knockoffs – Amazon Sues Influencers for Promoting Counterfeit Goods
Fashion Counsel: Privacy in the Retail Fashion Industry
Law Brief®: Mark Rosenberg and Richard Schoenstein Discuss Online Distribution Leakage
Nota Bene Episode 98: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mark on U.S. Antitrust Law for 2020 with Thomas Dillickrath and Bevin Newman
Podcast: South Dakota v. Wayfair
Stealth Lawyers: Steven Abt & Moiz Ali, Craft Spirits Curators
The United States Supreme Court infrequently hears antitrust cases but when it decides to hear a case, the Court has the power to shape the framework of American antitrust laws. In this episode, we’re examining the...more
Price gouging enforcement and litigation is front and center for company counsel and business managers nationwide. Our weekly round up highlights some of the most relevant news and information to our clients and friends. ...more
The COVID-19 pandemic created a run on certain personal hygiene products due to the fear of a widespread outbreak in the United States. Those scarce supplies include hand sanitizer, disinfecting wipes, gloves, masks, and...more
In a previous post, we reported that state Attorneys General are actively pursuing investigations into alleged price gouging under state consumer protection laws during the COVID-19 pandemic. ...more
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the shortage of necessary medical supplies, U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr, in a memo released on March 24, 2020, announced the creation of a special, nationwide task force to...more
In May 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Apple v. Pepper, one of the Court's most significant antitrust rulings of the last several years. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court...more
In a 5–4 decision, in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”) followed the its 1977 precedent in Illinois Brick v. Illinois, which limits the assertion of antitrust damage claims to the first purchaser...more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its most recent decision relating to antitrust class action litigation. The case, Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, could represent a significant shift in antitrust class action...more
In a 5-4 split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have reworked a longstanding precedent that has been a foundation of antitrust litigation for more than 40 years—the “direct purchaser” rule of Illinois Brick, which...more
In a recent decision decided on May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court allowed an antitrust suit to move forward against Apple. Consumers brought suit based on Apple’s operation of its App Store – which serves as the exclusive...more
In a 5-4 ruling issued on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Apple Inc. v. Pepper determined that iPhone users may proceed with their claims against Apple over its alleged anticompetitive app store practices. The decision...more
• The U.S. Supreme Court split 5-4 on how to apply Illinois Brick’s prohibition on federal indirect purchaser lawsuits to a case where plaintiff app purchasers bought apps from the Apple App Store, paying a price set by the...more
The United States Supreme Court decided this week that purchasers of apps through the Apple App Store have standing under federal antitrust law to bring a class-action lawsuit against the tech giant....more
Wondering if you’re a direct purchaser from a monopoly? There’s a Supreme Court ruling for that. Our Antitrust Team downloads the Court’s Apple v. Pepper decision and considers its conclusions and implications....more
In APPLE INC. v. PEPPER ET AL., case number 17-204, the United States Supreme Court considered a case alleging Apple has monopolized the retail market for the sale of apps and has unlawfully used its monopolistic power to...more
On May 13, 2019, in a 5-4 decision in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court held that consumers of iPhone apps are direct purchasers of Apple and therefore have standing to sue the company for alleged monopolization of...more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, holding that iPhone owners who purchase apps from Apple’s App Store are “direct purchasers” from Apple and may sue Apple for alleged monopolization...more
The e-commerce sector inquiry and inconsistent national case law and enforcement practice have illustrated the need for clarifications and/or reform regarding e-commerce restrictions. Even after the ECJ's Coty judgment, a...more
Margrethe Vestager, head of the European Union’s Directorate-General for Competition (“DG Comp”), recently announced that the EU was once again investigating actions of a high-profile tech company – Amazon....more
Read the latest news on antitrust, competition, and economic regulation in this summer edition of our quarterly ACER newsletter. ...more
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) handed down its judgment on 7 September 2018 in relation to an appeal by Ping Europe Limited (“Ping”) challenging the decision of the UK Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) to...more
The European Commission (the “Commission”) issued four separate decisions on 24 July 2018, fining consumer electronics manufacturers Asus, Denon & Marantz, Philips and Pioneer a total of €111 million for imposing fixed or...more
The European Commission (EC or the Commission) announced on July 24, 2018, that it has imposed a total fine of €111 million on four consumer electronics manufacturers — Asus, Denon & Marantz, Philips and Pioneer — for...more