(Podcast) The Briefing: Thirsty for Clarity – Brand Confusion In The Beverage Category
The Briefing: Thirsty for Clarity – Brand Confusion In The Beverage Category
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued a landmark decision that temporarily altered the standard of review for antitrust bid-rigging prosecutions against manufacturers and distributors in...more
2023 was a dramatic year for criminal antitrust enforcement in the United States. The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) garnered big wins: three convictions at trial,1 $267 million in criminal fines...more
The year 2023 ended with a bang in the cartel space, with a federal court of appeals upending what was long believed to be the scope of conduct that should be considered per se under the Sherman Act. The new year, 2024,...more
In recent court filings and public comments, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (“DOJ” or “the Division”) has stated that price fixing using algorithmic software is per se illegal under the antitrust laws. These...more
Introduction - No-poach agreements, wherein companies agree not to solicit or hire employees away from a competitor, have been targeted by the White House, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division....more
United States District Court Acquits all Defendants in US v. Patel - On April 28, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut acquitted the defendants in US v. Patel of the charges of conspiring...more
On April 28, 2023, a US District Court for the District of Connecticut judge dismissed the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) criminal non-solicitation case against six aerospace industry employees, acquitting all the...more
The various antitrust laws can seem unfair, complicated, and many times irrelevant to the practice of dentistry. However, these laws do apply. The U.S. Justice Department (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”)...more
In July 2021, the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division brought its first-ever criminal no-poach market allocation case. The Antitrust Division indicted DaVita, Inc. and its former CEO Kent Thiry on three counts...more
The Development: Congress unanimously passed and before leaving office, President Trump signed into law, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act ("CHIRA"). CHIRA limits application of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, an...more
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
‘No-poach’ agreements between businesses not to compete with each other for employees have long been held unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits certain restraints on trade and competition....more
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
• The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have indicated in the past that they believe that certain agreements between employers not to poach each other’s employees are...more