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
On September 17, 2020, legendary footballer Leo Messi achieved an elusive goal that he had been pursuing for years. No, he did not finally win a World Cup championship for the Albiceleste. Rather, after a nearly decade-long...more
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
Addressing the issue of personal jurisdiction in a trademark infringement case, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court and concluded that the plaintiff had made a prima facie showing that...more
The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue issued a bulletin announcing its view that the US Supreme Court’s sales and use tax decision in Wayfair v. South Dakota applies equally to corporate net income tax and authorizes the...more
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that online retailers such as Amazon could be held liable for allegedly defective third-party products sold through its website. In a 2-1 panel decision in Oberdorf v. Amazon.com,...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a decision that could change the liability landscape for online marketplaces such as Amazon....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
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided on the much-anticipated case of South Dakota v. Wayfair, 585 U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 2080 (2018). At issue was the validity of a statute applying sales tax to internet retailers that...more
Non-Canadian hoteliers have reason for celebration following the release of the Federal Court of Canada’s anticipated decision in Hilton Worldwide Holding LLP v Miller Thomson LLP, 2018 FC 895 (Hilton Worldwide)....more
Executive Summary - After Wayfair, unless Congress intervenes: The physical presence sales tax taxability standard is now gone - at least under circumstances like those presented by South Dakota’s situation. Income...more
Maine Revenue Services issued guidance, August 8, 2018, regarding remote sellers’ sales tax collection obligations in light of the Supreme Court’s June 21, 2018 decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc....more
Just about every State in the U.S. imposes a “sales tax” on the retail sale of goods and services in their State. That sales tax is required to be collected and remitted by the seller of the goods or services; however, if the...more
In its 5-4 decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, the U.S. Supreme Court gave states the authority to require online retailers to collect state sales taxes even if the retailer has no physical presence in a state. The decision...more
Stand Your Ground! Substantial Nexus Lives After Wayfair - The U.S. Supreme Court decided in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. that the U.S. Constitution does not require a physical presence in a taxing state in order for...more