Antitrust & Trade Regulation - Justia Case Law Summaries

In Re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation

2026-05-04T07:00:11-08:00

A group of branded gasoline retailers, known as the Old Jericho Plaintiffs, operated gas stations and accepted Visa and Mastercard payment cards during a specified period. Following a long-running federal antitrust class action alleging that Visa and Mastercard imposed unlawfully high interchange fees, a $5.6 billion settlement was reached in 2019 with a class defined as all entities accepting Visa- or Mastercard-branded cards in the United States from January 1, 2004, to January 24, 2019. The Old Jericho Plaintiffs did not opt out of this settlement. However, after the opt-out period ended, they filed a separate class action asserting state-law antitrust claims for damages based on the same alleged conduct, contending that their suppliers were the direct payors of the fees and thus should be the proper class members. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York determined that the Old Jericho Plaintiffs were members of the original settlement class and that the settlement agreement barred their new claims. The district court found the term “accepted” in the settlement ambiguous but, after reviewing extrinsic evidence—such as contracts and how transactions were conducted—concluded that the retailers themselves, not their suppliers, “accepted” payment cards within the meaning of the agreement. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that its prior decision in Fikes Wholesale, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. did not require class membership to be determined solely by identifying the “direct payor.” The court found no clear error in the district court’s factual determination that the Old Jericho Plaintiffs were intended to be class members. Additionally, it held that the claims brought by these plaintiffs were validly released in the settlement because they rested on the same factual predicate as the released claims and the plaintiffs had been adequately represented. View "In Re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

In Re: Google

2026-04-07T15:30:29-08:00

Branch Metrics, Inc. brought an antitrust action against Google, LLC, alleging violations of the Sherman Act based on documents uncovered in earlier litigation brought by the United States against Google. Branch Metrics claimed Google maintained monopoly power in online search and search advertising markets, using exclusive agreements that caused anticompetitive harm. The suit was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, although most relevant witnesses and evidence were located in California. Google responded by requesting a transfer of venue to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), arguing that it was clearly more convenient for parties and witnesses and that the sources of proof were located there. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas permitted venue discovery but ultimately denied Google’s motion to transfer. The court found that certain private interest factors slightly favored transfer, while one public interest factor—administrative difficulties stemming from court congestion—weighed against transfer, and the rest of the factors were neutral. On mandamus review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the district court misapplied the law by placing undue weight on the court congestion factor, which Fifth Circuit precedent considers speculative and non-dispositive. The appellate court held that the district court erred by allowing that single factor to override all other factors, contrary to circuit authority. The Fifth Circuit also rejected Branch Metrics’ argument that the Clayton Act insulated its choice of venue from transfer. The court granted Google’s petition for a writ of mandamus and ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of California. View "In Re: Google" on Justia Law

Duncan v. Bayer CropScience LP

2026-04-06T07:01:27-08:00

A group of farmers and farming entities brought suit against several manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of seeds and crop-protection chemicals, alleging that these defendants conspired to obscure pricing data for these “crop inputs.” The plaintiffs claimed that this conspiracy, which included a group boycott of electronic sales platforms and price-fixing activities, forced them to pay artificially high prices. They sought to represent a class of individuals who had purchased crop inputs from the defendants or their authorized retailers dating back to January 1, 2014. The plaintiffs asserted violations of the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and various state laws, seeking both damages and injunctive relief. After the cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The district court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Sherman Act because they did not adequately allege parallel conduct among the defendants. The RICO claims were also dismissed with prejudice, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The district court dismissed the antitrust claim with prejudice, noting that the plaintiffs had prior notice of the deficiencies and had multiple opportunities to amend. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead parallel conduct or provide sufficient factual detail connecting specific defendants to particular acts. It concluded that the complaint’s group pleading and conclusory allegations did not meet the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss. The court also ruled that the dismissal with prejudice was proper given the plaintiffs’ repeated failures to cure the deficiencies. View "Duncan v. Bayer CropScience LP" on Justia Law

Robinson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

2026-04-03T10:30:24-08:00

Four football players who had previously attended junior colleges (JUCOs) and then transferred to a Division I university challenged the NCAA’s “JUCO Rule.” This rule treats time spent and games played at JUCOs as counting toward limits on athletes’ eligibility to play NCAA sports—specifically, a five-year window to play four seasons. The NCAA had recently issued a temporary waiver (the “Pavia waiver”) that relaxed the rule regarding the number of seasons, but not the five-year limit. The plaintiffs, having enrolled in college over five years earlier, were rendered ineligible for the 2025–26 season under the rule, even with the waiver. After their requests for an NCAA waiver were denied, the players sued, alleging the rule violated the Sherman Act and state law. The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia granted a preliminary injunction, allowing the players to participate for the 2025–26 season. The NCAA appealed, and the Fourth Circuit requested additional briefing on mootness since the 2025–26 season had ended. The circuit court found the case was not moot because the dispute was capable of repetition yet evading review, especially as one player had already sought a waiver for the following season. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case. The court held that the district court erred by applying an abbreviated “quick look” analysis instead of the full “rule of reason” required under the Sherman Act for this type of eligibility rule. The circuit court further found that the district court failed to make adequate factual findings regarding the relevant market, as required for antitrust analysis. The court concluded that the players had not met their burden for a preliminary injunction, and the district court’s order was therefore vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Robinson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association" on Justia Law

Megatel v. Mansfield

2026-03-26T10:02:41-08:00

Two development companies owned land in Johnson County, Texas, within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Mansfield but outside the city’s corporate boundaries. To develop this land, the companies needed access to retail water services, which, under state law, could be provided only by the Johnson County Special Utility District (“JCSUD”) because it held the exclusive certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) for the area. However, a contract between JCSUD and the City of Mansfield required JCSUD to secure Mansfield’s written consent, which could be withheld at the City’s discretion, before providing water services within the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction. The developers’ efforts to obtain water service were unsuccessful, as Mansfield demanded annexation and additional fees, ultimately refusing to formalize an agreement. After unsuccessful negotiations and attempts to compel service through the Texas Public Utility Commission, the developers sued the City of Mansfield in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. They alleged violations of the Sherman Act and brought state-law claims. The district court, adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed the antitrust claims with prejudice, holding that Mansfield was entitled to state-action antitrust immunity under Texas law, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether Mansfield was entitled to state-action immunity. The Fifth Circuit held that, although Texas law authorizes monopolies for water utilities through CCNs, it does not clearly articulate or authorize the City of Mansfield to act anticompetitively concerning the area in question, since the CCN belonged to JCSUD. Therefore, the court reversed the district court’s grant of state-action immunity and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Megatel v. Mansfield" on Justia Law

GLOBAL TUBING LLC v. TENARIS COILED TUBES LLC

2026-02-26T07:02:34-08:00

The case concerns a dispute between two companies involved in the production and sale of coiled tubing for the oil and gas industry. One company, having acquired assets and documents from a predecessor, developed a coiled tubing product and obtained several patents (the ’256, ’074, and ’075 patents) covering aspects of this technology. The predecessor’s documents disclosed a product with overlapping technical specifications compared to at least some claims of these patents. During the patent application process, the company submitted a related public reference to the Patent and Trademark Office (Chitwood), but did not disclose the predecessor’s internal documents (the CYMAX Documents) that contained additional details. Internal discussions reflected uncertainty among inventors and counsel about the relevance and necessity of disclosing these documents. After disputes arose in the marketplace over alleged patent infringement, the manufacturer of a competing product initiated litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, seeking a declaration of non-infringement. The patent holder counterclaimed for infringement and, as the case proceeded, the competitor amended its claims to include allegations of inequitable conduct (fraud on the Patent Office by withholding material information) and Walker Process fraud (antitrust liability for enforcing a patent obtained by fraud). The district court granted summary judgment to the competitor on the inequitable conduct claim, finding clear evidence of intent to deceive and materiality, and granted summary judgment to the patent holder on the Walker Process fraud claim, finding insufficient evidence of market power. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated both summary judgment rulings. The appellate court held that genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on both inequitable conduct and Walker Process fraud. The court remanded for further proceedings, allowing both claims to proceed, and affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the patent holder on inequitable conduct. View "GLOBAL TUBING LLC v. TENARIS COILED TUBES LLC " on Justia Law

LA International Corp. v. Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc.

2026-02-24T09:31:15-08:00

A group of wholesale businesses that purchased Clear Eyes Redness Relief eye drops from a manufacturer alleged that the manufacturer sold the product at unlawfully lower prices to their larger competitors, specifically Costco and Sam’s Club. The manufacturer provided these large buyers with discounts and customer rebates not offered to the wholesalers, resulting in a significant price advantage for Costco and Sam’s Club. The wholesalers claimed that this conduct made it impossible for them to compete effectively and sought relief under the Robinson-Patman Act, as well as California’s Unfair Practices Act and Unfair Competition Law. The case was tried in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The jury found in favor of the wholesalers on their federal claims and awarded damages, except for one wholesaler that was not found to be in direct competition with Costco. The district court also found in favor of the California-based wholesalers on the state claims, entered judgment for the wholesalers, awarded damages, and issued a permanent injunction against the manufacturer. The court also awarded attorney’s fees but reduced the requested amount based on the size of the plaintiffs’ law firm rather than prevailing market rates. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the wholesalers on all substantive issues. The appellate court held that the district court properly instructed the jury, correctly included customer rebates in the price discrimination calculation, and appropriately issued a permanent injunction. However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s award of attorney’s fees, holding that a law firm's size alone cannot determine the market rate for a lodestar calculation. The case was remanded for recalculation of attorney’s fees consistent with prevailing market rates. View "LA International Corp. v. Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. North American Concert Promoters Association

2026-02-24T08:00:05-08:00

A major music performing rights organization, which licenses the public performance of musical works to concert promoters, was unable to reach agreement with a national association of concert promoters on the rates and revenue base for blanket licenses covering live performances. For the first time in their relationship, the rights organization petitioned the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to set the licensing terms, as permitted under an antitrust consent decree applicable to the organization due to its significant market share. The promoters’ association, whose members include the two largest concert promoters in the United States, has historically secured blanket licenses from multiple performing rights organizations to avoid copyright infringement. The district court accepted the organization’s proposed rates for a retroactive period and set a new, higher rate for a more recent period. It also broadened the definition of “gross revenues” for calculating royalties, including new categories such as revenues from ticket service fees, VIP packages, and box suites, which had not traditionally been included. The promoters’ association appealed these decisions, arguing that both the rates and the expanded revenue base were unreasonable. The rights organization cross-appealed the denial of prejudgment interest on retroactive payments. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s decisions. It held that the district court imposed unreasonable rates, in part because it adopted an unprecedented and administratively burdensome revenue base without justification and relied too heavily on benchmark agreements that were not sufficiently comparable to prior agreements with the association. The court also found no economic changes justifying a significant rate increase. While it found no abuse of discretion in denying prejudgment interest, it vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Broadcast Music, Inc. v. North American Concert Promoters Association" on Justia Law

Goldfinch Laboratory, P.C. v. Iowa Pathology Associates, P.C.

2026-02-23T08:30:53-08:00

Four pathologists left their employment at a Des Moines laboratory, operated by Iowa Pathology Associates, P.C., and Regional Laboratory Consultants, P.C., to form a new competing laboratory called Goldfinch Laboratory, P.C. Goldfinch alleged that the existing laboratories had previously enjoyed monopoly power over pathology services in Central Iowa and had pressured pathologists to sign noncompetition agreements to maintain that monopoly. After Goldfinch was established, it claimed that the defendants made false statements about it to physician referrers and undertook other actions designed to eliminate Goldfinch from the market, resulting in significant financial losses. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa dismissed Goldfinch’s complaint. The district court concluded that Goldfinch had not suffered an antitrust injury, was not a proper plaintiff, and, in any event, failed to state a claim under the relevant antitrust statutes. Goldfinch appealed this dismissal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The appellate court held that Goldfinch’s claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act failed because the complaint itself established that the two defendant laboratories were not independent economic actors but operated as a single economic unit, incapable of conspiring with each other under antitrust law. Regarding the Section 2 claim for attempted monopolization, the court found that Goldfinch had not adequately alleged a relevant geographic market, as it did not explain why pathology services outside Central Iowa were not practical alternatives for referring physicians. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of leave to amend the complaint, as Goldfinch did not explain how an amendment could cure these deficiencies. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "Goldfinch Laboratory, P.C. v. Iowa Pathology Associates, P.C." on Justia Law

INGEVITY CORPORATION v. BASF CORPORATION

2026-02-11T08:35:29-08:00

Two companies that manufacture activated carbon honeycombs, used in automotive emission control systems, became embroiled in a legal dispute. One company holds a patent covering certain dual-stage fuel vapor canister systems, but not honeycombs used in air-intake systems. The other company began marketing a competing honeycomb product, prompting a patent infringement lawsuit. In response, the defendant challenged the validity of the patent, argued non-infringement, and asserted counterclaims alleging antitrust violations—specifically, that the patent holder unlawfully tied licenses for the patent to the purchase of its unpatented honeycomb products. The United States District Court for the District of Delaware first granted summary judgment that the patent was invalid due to prior invention. It then denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment on the antitrust and tortious interference counterclaims, finding a factual dispute about whether the honeycomb products had substantial non-infringing uses. At trial, the jury found the patent holder liable for unlawful tying under federal antitrust law, concluding that it had conditioned patent licenses on customers buying its honeycombs, and awarded significant damages. The district court denied the patent holder’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, confirming the jury’s findings that the honeycombs were staple goods with substantial non-infringing uses and that the conduct was not protected by immunity doctrines. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Federal Circuit held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings that the honeycomb products had actual and substantial non-infringing uses, making them staple goods and removing the patent holder’s statutory defense against antitrust liability. The court also rejected the argument that the patent holder’s conduct was immunized from antitrust scrutiny, and upheld the damages award, finding no error in the district court’s rulings or the jury’s determinations. View "INGEVITY CORPORATION v. BASF CORPORATION " on Justia Law

Carina Ventures LLC v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation

2026-02-06T09:04:06-08:00

This case arises from a contract dispute related to a broader multidistrict antitrust litigation involving alleged price-fixing in the sale of broiler chickens. The parties, a meat producer and a commercial purchaser, engaged in settlement negotiations to resolve the purchaser’s antitrust claims across three cases (Broilers, Beef, and Pork) for a total of $50 million. The negotiations included email exchanges where the purchaser appeared to accept a settlement offer, but several terms—including compliance with a judgment sharing agreement, assignment data, a “most favored nation” clause, and allocation among cases—remained unresolved. The purchaser had obtained litigation funding, which required consent from the funder for any settlement. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois initially denied the producer’s motion for summary judgment in 2023 but later granted the producer’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The court found that the parties had agreed to the essential material terms: the $50 million payment and release of claims. It relied on draft settlement agreements, despite their lack of signatures, to memorialize agreement on additional terms. The court rejected arguments regarding laches and jurisdiction and subsequently granted summary judgment to the producer, concluding its obligations had been fulfilled by payment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment de novo. It held that no binding settlement agreement existed as of the purchaser’s “We accept” email because several material terms remained open and unresolved at that time. The court found that, under Illinois law, mutual assent to all material terms is required for a binding contract, and the parties had continued to negotiate those material terms for months after the email exchange. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Carina Ventures LLC v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation" on Justia Law

Ohio ex rel. Yost v. Ascent Health Services, LLC

2026-01-27T15:30:48-08:00

The State of Ohio brought a lawsuit in state court against several pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and related entities, alleging they conspired to artificially inflate prescription drug prices in violation of Ohio law. Ohio claimed that the PBMs, acting as intermediaries between drug manufacturers and health plans, negotiated rebates and fees in a manner that increased drug list prices and extracted payments from pharmacies, harming consumers and violating state antitrust and consumer protection statutes. The PBMs provided services to both private clients and federal health plans, including those for federal employees and military personnel. The defendants, Express Scripts and Prime Therapeutics, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under the federal officer removal statute, arguing that their negotiations on drug prices were conducted on behalf of both federal and non-federal clients in a unified process subject to federal oversight. Ohio moved to remand the case to state court, asserting that its claims did not target conduct directed by federal officers and disclaimed any challenge to the administration of federal health programs like FEHBA or TRICARE. The district court accepted Ohio’s disclaimer and determined that the complaint did not impose liability for acts under federal direction, granting Ohio’s motion to remand. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the matter de novo. The court held that the PBMs were “persons acting under” federal officers because their negotiations were performed under detailed federal supervision and regulation for federal health plans. The court further found that the complaint related to acts under color of federal office, as the alleged wrongful conduct was inseparable from federally directed negotiations. The court also determined that the PBMs raised colorable federal defenses based on federal preemption. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s remand order and remanded the case for further proceedings in federal court. View "Ohio ex rel. Yost v. Ascent Health Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Rx Solutions v. Caremark

2026-01-14T16:30:12-08:00

A Mississippi retail pharmacy, Rx Solutions, Inc., sought to join the pharmacy benefit management (PBM) network operated by Caremark, LLC, which is associated with CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Caremark denied Rx Solutions’ application, citing inconsistencies in ownership information and affiliations with Quest Pharmacy, owned by Harold Ted Cain, who Caremark claimed was previously found guilty of violating the False Claims Act. Rx Solutions disputed these reasons, noting acceptance by other PBM networks and asserting that Harold Ted Cain lacked operational control over Rx Solutions and had not been convicted of any relevant criminal offense. Rx Solutions filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging two federal antitrust violations under the Sherman Act and three state law claims: violation of Mississippi’s “any willing provider” statute, violation of the state antitrust statute, and tortious interference with business relations. The district court dismissed the federal antitrust and state statutory claims, concluding that Rx Solutions failed to adequately define relevant product and geographic markets and did not allege antitrust injury. The court also determined there was no diversity jurisdiction to support the remaining state law claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the federal antitrust and Mississippi state antitrust claims, holding that Rx Solutions did not sufficiently plead a relevant market or antitrust injury. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s finding regarding diversity jurisdiction, based on admissions by Caremark and CVS establishing complete diversity between the parties. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the state antitrust claim and remanded the claims under Mississippi’s “any willing provider” statute and for tortious interference with business relations for further proceedings. View "Rx Solutions v. Caremark" on Justia Law

Endure Industries v. Vizient

2026-01-13T10:30:13-08:00

Endure Industries, Inc., a seller of disposable medical supplies, sought to participate as a supplier in Vizient’s group purchasing organization (GPO), which negotiates bulk purchasing contracts for healthcare providers. Vizient is the largest GPO in the United States, serving a majority of general acute care centers and academic medical centers. After Vizient rejected Endure’s bid to supply medical tape in favor of another supplier, Endure filed an antitrust suit against Vizient and related entities, alleging monopolization and anticompetitive conduct in two proposed markets for disposable medical supplies. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted summary judgment to Vizient, finding that Endure failed to define a legally sufficient relevant market under antitrust law. The district court reasoned that Endure’s expert’s market definitions—(1) the sale of disposable medical supplies through GPOs to acute care centers, and (2) sales to Vizient member hospitals—excluded significant alternative sources of supply. Specifically, evidence showed that many hospitals purchase substantial amounts of supplies outside GPO contracts, demonstrating that reasonable substitutes exist and undermining Endure’s theory of market foreclosure. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed only the issue of market definition. The Fifth Circuit held that Endure did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding its proposed markets, as its definitions failed to account for all commodities reasonably interchangeable by consumers. The court found that significant hospital purchasing occurs outside GPOs and that Vizient members are not “locked in” to buying exclusively through Vizient. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Vizient, concluding that neither of Endure’s proposed antitrust markets was legally sufficient. View "Endure Industries v. Vizient" on Justia Law

MALHEUR FOREST FAIRNESS COALITION V. IRON TRIANGLE, LLC

2026-01-13T10:03:28-08:00

Iron Triangle, LLC significantly increased its presence in the Malheur National Forest after winning a 2013 competitive bidding process by the U.S. Forest Service, securing an exclusive ten-year stewardship contract and right of first refusal on 70% of federal timberland. Iron Triangle also regularly won bids for the remaining 30% of timber sales. In 2020, it entered a contract with Malheur Lumber Company to supply pine sawlogs and provide logging services. Plaintiffs—loggers, landowners, and a competing sawmill—claimed that Iron Triangle and other defendants used anticompetitive tactics to monopolize and restrain trade across four related product markets in the region. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed the antitrust claims with prejudice, finding that plaintiffs failed to allege monopoly power, anticompetitive conduct, or antitrust injury in any of the identified markets. The court also held that federal regulations governing government contracting and timber sales precluded findings of monopoly power. Plaintiffs amended their complaint twice, but each time, the district court found the allegations insufficient and eventually denied further leave to amend. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. While disagreeing that federal regulations categorically preclude monopoly power, the appellate court held that plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead monopoly or monopsony power, anticompetitive conduct, or antitrust injury in any market. The court also found plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege an illegal tying arrangement under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as logging services and sawlogs were not distinct products and there was no coercion. The Ninth Circuit further affirmed denial of leave to amend, concluding additional amendments would be futile. View "MALHEUR FOREST FAIRNESS COALITION V. IRON TRIANGLE, LLC" on Justia Law

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC V. NHK SPRING CO., LTD.

2026-01-08T09:31:20-08:00

Seagate Technology LLC, a California-based manufacturer of hard disk drives, and two of its foreign subsidiaries (in Thailand and Singapore) brought antitrust claims against NHK Spring Co., Ltd., a Japanese supplier of suspension assemblies—critical hard drive components. NHK pleaded guilty in a separate federal criminal proceeding to conspiring with competitors to fix the prices of these suspension assemblies, which were sold both in the United States and abroad. The majority of the price-fixed assemblies purchased by Seagate’s foreign entities occurred outside the United States, with only finished hard drives being imported into the country. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California initially found that the Sherman Act did not apply to Seagate’s claims related to suspension assemblies purchased abroad, ruling that these were “wholly foreign transactions” outside the reach of U.S. antitrust law. The court also determined that the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) import commerce exclusion did not apply since the assemblies themselves were not directly imported into the United States, and that Seagate could not show the necessary domestic effect giving rise to its foreign injury. The district court granted NHK’s motion for partial summary judgment in full and denied Seagate leave to amend its complaint for indirect purchaser claims. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment order. The appellate court held that while the import commerce exclusion did not apply, Seagate alleged a viable theory under the FTAIA’s domestic effects exception: NHK’s price-fixing in the United States led to higher prices domestically, which then directly caused Seagate’s foreign entities to pay inflated prices abroad. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for the district court to determine whether Seagate had presented sufficient evidence of proximate cause to survive summary judgment. View "SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC V. NHK SPRING CO., LTD." on Justia Law

ALIVECOR, INC. V. APPLE INC.

2026-01-08T09:00:36-08:00

AliveCor, a medical-technology company, developed a software feature called SmartRhythm to detect atrial fibrillation (Afib) using the Apple Watch. SmartRhythm depended on heart rate data generated by Apple’s original Workout Mode algorithm, known as HRPO. In 2018, Apple updated its Watch operating system and replaced HRPO with a new algorithm, HRNN, which improved exercise monitoring. Apple shared HRNN data with third-party developers but stopped sharing HRPO data, making SmartRhythm ineffective and leading AliveCor to discontinue the feature. Around the same time, Apple launched its own heart rhythm analysis feature, Irregular Rhythm Notification (IRN), using a different algorithm and shared that data as well. AliveCor alleged that Apple’s conduct intentionally disabled competing software features, thereby monopolizing the market for heart rhythm analysis apps on the Apple Watch. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment for Apple, finding that Apple’s changes constituted a lawful product improvement under Allied Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Group LP. The court held that the update to the Workout Mode was a genuine product improvement and that the associated incompatibility with SmartRhythm was not separate anticompetitive conduct. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment, but on different grounds. The Ninth Circuit held that Apple’s refusal to continue sharing HRPO data with third-party developers constituted a “refusal to deal,” which under antitrust law does not impose a duty to share with competitors unless specific exceptions apply. The court found that AliveCor had not shown that an exception, such as the Aspen Skiing exception or the essential-facilities doctrine, applied. Therefore, AliveCor’s Section 2 Sherman Act claims failed as a matter of law, and summary judgment for Apple was affirmed. View "ALIVECOR, INC. V. APPLE INC." on Justia Law

North Brevard County Hospital District v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

2025-12-31T12:31:26-08:00

A hospital district alleged that a medical device manufacturer used its dominant market share in tip-location systems (TLS) for catheters to manipulate the market for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Bard, the manufacturer, sells PICCs with a proprietary stylet that is necessary to integrate with Bard’s TLS. The hospital claimed this arrangement effectively forced hospitals to buy Bard’s PICCs to use the TLS, resulting in higher prices, and brought suit under the Sherman Act and Clayton Act for unlawful tying and monopolization. The hospital sought class certification for clinics and hospitals that had purchased Bard PICCs. Initially, the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted Bard’s motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the tying claim, holding that the hospital lacked antitrust standing since it purchased only the tied product (PICCs) and not the tying product (TLS). The court concluded the hospital did not show it was compelled to buy Bard’s PICCs as a result of owning Bard’s TLS. The court allowed the monopolization claim to proceed, but later denied class certification, finding the proposed class did not meet certification requirements. After the Tenth Circuit denied interlocutory review of the class certification denial, the hospital voluntarily dismissed its remaining claim to facilitate an appeal from final judgment. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the tying claim, holding that the hospital was not an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws and therefore lacked antitrust standing. The court found that purchasers of the tying product or competitors are generally better positioned to challenge tying arrangements. The Tenth Circuit also dismissed the appeal from denial of class certification, ruling it lacked jurisdiction under circuit and Supreme Court precedent when the underlying claim was voluntarily dismissed. View "North Brevard County Hospital District v. C.R. Bard, Inc." on Justia Law

Cherry Grove Beach Gear, LLC v. City of North Myrtle Beach

2025-12-23T11:31:06-08:00

Cherry Grove Beach Gear, LLC, operated by Derek and Jacqueline Calhoun, began providing beach equipment rentals and setup services on public beaches in the City of North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, starting in 2020. The City informed CGBG that its activities violated local ordinances, but the company continued operating despite repeated warnings and complaints from competitors. In response, the City enacted a new ordinance in June 2022 that explicitly restricted professional setup of beach equipment on City beaches to City officials only. CGBG persisted with its services and received several citations for noncompliance. Following these actions, CGBG filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, alleging that the City had unlawfully established a monopoly over beach equipment rentals and setup services, violating federal antitrust law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, determining that the municipal ordinances qualified for state action immunity from federal antitrust liability under the Parker doctrine, based on relevant South Carolina statutes. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that the South Carolina statutes in question clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy allowing municipalities to create exclusive franchises for beach equipment rentals and setup, and that the anticompetitive effects were a foreseeable result of this legislative authorization. The court also rejected CGBG’s argument for a “market participant exception” to state action immunity, noting that precedent does not recognize such an exception. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the City is entitled to state action immunity and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Cherry Grove Beach Gear, LLC v. City of North Myrtle Beach" on Justia Law

DirecTV, LLC v. Nexstar Media Group, Inc.

2025-12-16T08:00:13-08:00

A distributor of television programming alleged that three groups of broadcasters, including two that were so-called “sidecar” entities of a larger broadcaster, engaged in a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy. The distributor claimed that the broadcasters coordinated through a common negotiator to demand supracompetitive retransmission fees during contract renewal talks. When the distributor declined to pay the demanded rates, it lost access to the broadcasters’ stations in certain markets, resulting in blackouts for subscribers and subsequent lost profits. Prior to this appeal, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the case. The district court granted the broadcasters’ motion to dismiss the federal antitrust claims, concluding that the distributor lacked antitrust standing. Specifically, the district court found that there was no antitrust injury because the distributor did not actually pay the alleged supracompetitive prices, and that the distributor was not an efficient enforcer since its injuries were indirect and speculative. Consequently, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the distributor’s remaining state law claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the distributor plausibly alleged an antitrust injury, as lost profits from a reduction in output (subscriber losses caused by blackouts resulting from price fixing) are a cognizable form of antitrust injury. The court further held that the distributor is an efficient enforcer because it was the direct target of the alleged conspiracy and had a preexisting course of dealing with the broadcasters. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the federal antitrust claims, vacated the decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "DirecTV, LLC v. Nexstar Media Group, Inc." on Justia Law

McLoughlin v. Cantor Fitzgerald L.P.

2025-12-15T10:00:31-08:00

Several individuals who were former partners at Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., BGC Holdings L.P., and Newmark Holdings L.P. separated from those partnerships and were entitled to receive certain payments after their departure. These payments included an initial amount plus four annual installment payments, but the partnership agreements allowed the partnerships to withhold the annual payments if the former partners engaged in broadly defined “Competitive Activity.” The partnerships exercised this right and withheld payments from the plaintiffs after determining they had engaged in such activity. The plaintiffs alleged that these provisions constituted unreasonable restraints of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and, for two plaintiffs, a violation of Delaware’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to plead an “antitrust injury,” which is necessary to assert a claim under the Sherman Act, and further held that the implied covenant claims failed because the partnership agreements gave the partnerships express contractual discretion to withhold the payments when a former partner competed, leaving no contractual gap for the implied covenant to fill. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The court held that the plaintiffs’ pecuniary injuries, stemming from the withholding of payments, were not antitrust injuries because they did not result from anticompetitive conduct affecting their status as market participants, nor were their injuries inextricably intertwined with any anticompetitive scheme. Regarding the implied covenant claims, the Third Circuit found that the relevant agreements expressly permitted withholding the payments under the circumstances, and there was no plausible allegation that the partnerships exercised their discretion in bad faith. View "McLoughlin v. Cantor Fitzgerald L.P." on Justia Law

EPIC GAMES, INC. V. APPLE INC.

2025-12-11T09:31:02-08:00

Epic Games, a developer and operator of the Epic Games Store, sued Apple over its App Store practices, alleging violations of federal and California competition law. The dispute centered on Apple’s rules requiring developers to use Apple’s in-app payment system, which imposed a 30% commission, and its prohibition of developers directing users to other purchasing options outside the App Store. After a bench trial, the district court found Apple’s anti-steering provisions violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by preventing informed consumer choice but upheld Apple’s in-app payment system requirement for digital goods. The court issued an injunction barring Apple from restricting developers from including in their apps buttons, links, or other calls to action that direct users to alternative purchasing mechanisms. Following the injunction, Apple implemented a compliance plan involving a 27% commission on linked-out purchases and a series of restrictions on how developers could present external payment options, including limitations on button design, link placement, and user flow. Epic contested Apple’s compliance, arguing these measures still effectively prohibited alternative purchases. After holding multiple evidentiary hearings, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found Apple in civil contempt for failing to comply with the injunction, citing Apple’s bad faith and pretextual justifications. The district court imposed broad sanctions, including prohibiting any commission on linked-out purchases, restricting Apple’s ability to limit external links, and referring Apple for criminal investigation. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s contempt findings and most of the resulting sanctions but found portions of the sanctions—particularly the blanket ban on commissions—overbroad and more punitive than coercive. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded those parts for further tailoring, clarified the scope of permissible developer link prominence, and declined to vacate the injunction or reassign the case. The court otherwise affirmed the district court’s orders. View "EPIC GAMES, INC. V. APPLE INC." on Justia Law

Elad v. NCAA

2025-11-25T10:00:10-08:00

A student athlete who played football at Rutgers University challenged two NCAA Division I bylaws that counted seasons played at junior colleges toward the NCAA’s limit of four seasons of eligibility over a five-year period. The athlete, Jett Elad, had played at Ohio University, Garden City Community College (a junior college), and UNLV, exhausting his eligibility under the rule despite only playing three seasons at NCAA Division I schools. After learning of a favorable ruling for another athlete in a similar situation, Elad sought a waiver from the NCAA, which was denied. He then entered the transfer portal, was recruited by Rutgers, received a lucrative NIL contract, and filed suit seeking an injunction to allow him to play an additional season. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Elad a preliminary injunction, preventing the NCAA from counting his junior college season toward his eligibility limit. The NCAA appealed, arguing that the rule was not subject to antitrust scrutiny and that the lower court had failed to properly define the relevant market for its antitrust analysis. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and applied de novo review to the district court’s legal conclusions and clear error review to factual findings. The appellate court held that NCAA eligibility rules are not categorically exempt from Sherman Act scrutiny and that the challenged “JUCO Rule” had a commercial effect because it restrained participation in the college football labor market. However, the court found that the district court erred by failing to adequately define the relevant market and by relying on outdated market realities that did not reflect changes following NCAA v. Alston. The Third Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to conduct a proper market analysis. View "Elad v. NCAA" on Justia Law

Lazarou v. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology

2025-10-29T14:00:16-08:00

Two psychiatrists challenged the practices of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN), alleging that ABPN unlawfully tied its specialty certification to its maintenance of certification (MOC) product, thereby violating antitrust law and causing unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs argued that ABPN’s monopoly over specialty certifications forced doctors to purchase the MOC product, which includes both activity and assessment requirements, in order to maintain their professional standing and employment opportunities. They claimed that the MOC product functioned as a substitute for other continuing medical education (CME) products required for state licensure, and that this arrangement harmed competition in the CME market. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint with prejudice. The district court found that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege an illegal tying arrangement under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, specifically because they did not show that ABPN’s MOC product was a viable substitute for other CME products. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs had multiple opportunities to amend their complaint and had not demonstrated how further amendment would cure the deficiencies. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that psychiatrists and neurologists view ABPN’s MOC product as reasonably interchangeable with other CME offerings. The court found that, even if MOC participation could partially or fully satisfy state CME requirements, the additional time, cost, and effort required by the MOC program made it implausible that doctors would choose MOC over other CME products. The court also upheld the district court’s decision to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, finding no abuse of discretion. View "Lazarou v. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology" on Justia Law

Academy of Allergy & Asthma in Primary Care v. Amerigroup Tennessee, Inc.

2025-10-10T12:30:19-08:00

A company that supplies allergy testing materials and personnel to primary-care physicians in Tennessee alleged that several insurers and a dominant allergy-care medical group conspired to drive it and its contracting physicians out of the market. The company provided technicians and supplies to physicians, who then billed insurers for allergy services. The company claimed that the insurers and the medical group coordinated audits, denied claims, and set restrictive reimbursement policies, which led physicians to stop using its services and caused it financial harm. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee dismissed the company’s federal antitrust claims at the pleading stage, finding it lacked standing to sue under the antitrust laws, and later granted summary judgment to the defendants on the company’s state-law tort claims. The company appealed both the dismissal of its antitrust claims and the grant of summary judgment on its tort claims. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The Sixth Circuit clarified that, under federal antitrust law, a plaintiff must show both antitrust injury and proximate causation. The court held that the company’s injuries were only indirect, as they resulted from harms inflicted on the physicians, who were the direct victims of the alleged anticompetitive conduct. Applying the Supreme Court’s rule from Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, the court found that indirect sellers—those two or more steps removed in the distribution chain—may not sue for antitrust violations. The court also affirmed summary judgment on the state-law claims, concluding that the company failed to show either malice or causation as required for tortious interference, and that its civil conspiracy claim could not survive without an underlying tort. View "Academy of Allergy & Asthma in Primary Care v. Amerigroup Tennessee, Inc." on Justia Law

Crowley Marine Services, Inc. v. State of Alaska

2025-10-03T09:00:15-08:00

A fuel distribution company sought to acquire a competitor in Western Alaska, prompting the State to sue for anticompetitive conduct under Alaska’s consumer protection laws. To resolve the dispute, the State and the company negotiated a consent decree requiring the company to divest a portion of its fuel storage capacity in Bethel to another distributor, Delta Western, before completing the acquisition. The consent decree specified that it would expire in 30 years or could be dissolved by court order for good cause. Delta Western was not a party to the consent decree, but entered into a separate fuel storage contract with the acquiring company as required by the decree. The contract’s term extended beyond the initial five years at Delta Western’s option. Years later, the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Second Judicial District, Nome, dissolved the consent decree at the acquiring company’s request. The company then notified Delta Western that it considered the fuel storage contract terminated as a result. Delta Western filed a breach of contract action in Anchorage Superior Court, seeking to enforce the contract and arguing that its terms were independent of the consent decree. The contract case was transferred to Nome Superior Court, which issued a preliminary ruling that the contract remained valid despite the dissolution of the consent decree. The court also vacated its initial order dissolving the consent decree to allow Delta Western to intervene and present its position. The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed whether dissolution of the consent decree automatically terminated the fuel storage contract and whether the superior court abused its discretion by permitting Delta Western to intervene. The court held that dissolution of the consent decree did not automatically void the contract between the parties, and that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Delta Western to intervene. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decisions and lifted the stay on the contract case. View "Crowley Marine Services, Inc. v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law

Pavia v. NCAA

2025-10-01T08:00:19-08:00

Diego Pavia, a college football player, sought to play for Vanderbilt University during the 2025 season. After a successful 2024 season, Pavia faced ineligibility under National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules, which limit athletes to four seasons of intercollegiate competition, including seasons played at junior colleges. Pavia’s path included time at a junior college, New Mexico State University, and Vanderbilt. The NCAA counted his 2021 junior college season toward his eligibility, effectively barring him from playing in 2025. Pavia argued that this rule violated the Sherman Act and sought injunctive relief to allow him to play in the 2025 and 2026 seasons. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted Pavia a preliminary injunction, preventing the NCAA from enforcing the rule against him for the 2025 season and from applying its restitution rule to Vanderbilt or Pavia based on his participation. The NCAA appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. While the appeal was pending, the NCAA issued a waiver allowing all similarly situated athletes, including Pavia, to play in the 2025 season. The NCAA confirmed that this waiver would remain in effect regardless of the outcome of the appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that, because Pavia had already received the relief he sought at the preliminary injunction stage, the appeal was moot. The court held that it could not grant any further effectual relief and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court also declined to vacate the preliminary injunction, finding that the NCAA’s own actions had caused the case to become moot. View "Pavia v. NCAA" on Justia Law

Sonterra Cap. Master Fund, Ltd. v. UBS AG

2025-09-15T07:00:07-08:00

Several plaintiffs, including an individual, an investment fund, and a limited partnership, engaged in trading derivatives tied to the Sterling London Interbank Offered Rate (Sterling LIBOR). They alleged that a group of major banks conspired to manipulate Sterling LIBOR for their own trading advantage. The plaintiffs claimed that the banks coordinated false submissions to the rate-setting process, sometimes inflating and sometimes deflating the benchmark, which in turn affected the value of Sterling LIBOR-based derivatives. The plaintiffs asserted that this manipulation was orchestrated through internal and external communications among banks and with the help of inter-dealer brokers. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the case and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the Sherman Act and the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The district court found that two plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing because they were not “efficient enforcers” and had not transacted directly with the defendants, resulting in only indirect and remote damages. The court also determined that the third plaintiff, a limited partnership, lacked the capacity to sue and had not properly assigned its claims to a substitute entity. Additionally, the court found that one plaintiff failed to adequately plead specific intent for the CEA claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, but on a narrower ground. The Second Circuit held that none of the plaintiffs plausibly alleged actual injury under either the Sherman Act or the CEA. The court explained that because the alleged manipulation was multidirectional—sometimes raising and sometimes lowering Sterling LIBOR—the plaintiffs did not show that they suffered net harm as a result of the defendants’ conduct. Without specific allegations of transactions where they were harmed by the manipulation, the plaintiffs’ claims could not proceed. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed, and the cross-appeal was dismissed as moot. View "Sonterra Cap. Master Fund, Ltd. v. UBS AG" on Justia Law

Sullivan v. UBS AG

2025-08-22T06:30:10-08:00

A group of plaintiffs, including an individual, a retirement fund, and several investment funds, traded derivatives based on the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor). They alleged that a group of banks and brokers conspired to manipulate Euribor, which affected the pricing of various over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, such as FX forwards, interest-rate swaps, and forward rate agreements. The alleged conduct included coordinated false submissions to set Euribor at artificial levels, collusion among banks and brokers, and structural changes within banks to facilitate manipulation. Plaintiffs claimed this manipulation harmed them by distorting the prices of their Euribor-based derivative transactions. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the Sherman Act, the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and state common law, finding it lacked personal jurisdiction over all defendants. The district court also found that the RICO claims were based on extraterritorial conduct and did not meet the particularity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). It declined to exercise pendent personal jurisdiction over state-law claims. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It agreed that conspiracy-based personal jurisdiction was not established but held that two plaintiffs—Frontpoint Australian Opportunities Trust and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System—had established specific personal jurisdiction over UBS AG and The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC for Sherman Act and RICO claims related to OTC Euribor derivative transactions in the United States. The court affirmed dismissal of the RICO claims for lack of particularity, but held that the Sherman Act claims were sufficiently pleaded. It vacated the district court’s refusal to exercise pendent personal jurisdiction over state-law claims and remanded for further proceedings. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part. View "Sullivan v. UBS AG" on Justia Law

Garavanian v. JetBlue Airways Corp.

2025-08-21T13:00:04-08:00

Two individuals, along with other plaintiffs, filed suit under Section 7 of the Clayton Act to block a proposed merger between two airlines. After their case was filed, the U.S. Department of Justice, joined by several states and the District of Columbia, brought a separate action challenging the same merger. Both cases were assigned to the same judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, but were not consolidated. The district court found that only two of the original plaintiffs had standing, dismissing the others. The plaintiffs’ request to consolidate their case with the DOJ’s was denied. The DOJ case proceeded to trial first, resulting in a bench trial judgment that the merger violated the Clayton Act, and the court permanently enjoined the merger. The airlines appealed but later abandoned the merger and dismissed their appeal. As a result, the district court dismissed the remaining plaintiffs’ case as moot, since the relief they sought had already been granted in the DOJ case. The dismissed plaintiffs then moved for attorneys’ fees and costs, arguing they were prevailing parties under Section 16 of the Clayton Act because their efforts contributed to the outcome. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed whether the plaintiffs qualified as prevailing parties eligible for attorneys’ fees. The court held that, under the standard set by Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, a party must obtain a judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties, such as a judgment on the merits or a consent decree. Because the plaintiffs’ case was dismissed as moot without a judgment on the merits, and they were not beneficiaries of the injunction in the DOJ case, the court concluded they were not prevailing parties. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees and costs. View "Garavanian v. JetBlue Airways Corp." on Justia Law

Heymer v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC

2025-08-15T12:30:18-08:00

Fifteen individuals who purchased new motorcycles from a major American manufacturer received a limited warranty with their purchases. The warranty provided for free repair or replacement of defective parts for up to 24 months but excluded coverage for defects or damage caused by non-approved or non-manufacturer parts. The plaintiffs, concerned that using non-manufacturer parts would void their warranties, opted to buy higher-priced parts from the manufacturer. They later alleged that the company’s warranty practices unlawfully conditioned warranty coverage on the exclusive use of its own parts, in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and various state antitrust laws. The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the plaintiffs’ lawsuits and transferred them to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The district court dismissed the consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim. It found that the limited warranty did not condition benefits on exclusive use of manufacturer parts and that the risk of losing warranty coverage was insufficient to establish an anticompetitive tying arrangement or economic coercion under state antitrust law. The court also dismissed related state law claims premised on the same conduct. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Seventh Circuit held that the warranty’s terms did not create an express or implied tie prohibited by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, nor did the complaint plausibly allege violations of the Act’s disclosure or pre-sale availability requirements. The court further held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege sufficient market power or anticompetitive effects to support their state antitrust claims, and that the warranty’s terms were available to consumers at the time of purchase, precluding a Kodak-style lock-in theory. The court affirmed dismissal of all claims. View "Heymer v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Gibson v. Cendyn Group, LLC

2025-08-15T08:31:14-08:00

Two individuals who frequently rented hotel rooms on the Las Vegas Strip brought a class action lawsuit, alleging that several major hotel operators and related entities caused them to pay artificially high prices for hotel rooms. The plaintiffs claimed that these hotels each entered into agreements to license revenue-management software from a single provider, Cendyn, whose products generated pricing recommendations based on proprietary algorithms. The software did not require hotels to follow its recommendations, nor did it share confidential information among the hotels. Plaintiffs alleged that, after the hotels adopted this software, room prices increased. The United States District Court for the District of Nevada reviewed the complaint, which asserted two claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The first claim alleged a “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy among the hotels to adopt and follow the software’s pricing recommendations, but the district court dismissed this claim for failure to plausibly allege an agreement among the hotels. The plaintiffs later abandoned their appeal of this claim. The second claim alleged that the aggregate effect of the individual licensing agreements between each hotel and Cendyn resulted in anticompetitive effects, specifically higher prices. The district court dismissed this claim as well, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege a restraint of trade in the relevant market. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act because the independent decisions by competing hotels to license the same pricing software, without an agreement among them or a restraint imposed by the software provider, did not constitute a restraint of trade. The court concluded that neither the terms nor the operation of the licensing agreements imposed anticompetitive restraints in the market for hotel-room rentals on the Las Vegas Strip. View "Gibson v. Cendyn Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Penthol v. Vertex Energy

2025-08-15T04:00:40-08:00

A trading company and a base oil manufacturer entered into a sales agreement in 2016, under which the manufacturer would serve as the exclusive North American sales representative for a high-quality base oil product distributed by the trading company. The agreement included noncompete provisions and was set to expire at the end of 2021. In late 2020, suspicions arose between the parties regarding potential breaches of the agreement, leading to a series of letters in which the trading company accused the manufacturer of selling a competing product and threatened termination if the alleged breach was not cured. The manufacturer responded by denying any breach and, after further correspondence, declared the agreement terminated. The trading company agreed that the agreement was terminated, and both parties ceased their business relationship. The trading company then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging antitrust violations, breach of contract, business disparagement, and misappropriation of trade secrets. The manufacturer counterclaimed for breach of contract and tortious interference. After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of the manufacturer on the breach of contract and trade secret claims, awarding over $1.3 million in damages. However, the court determined that the agreement was mutually terminated, not due to anticipatory repudiation by the trading company, and denied the manufacturer’s request for attorneys’ fees and prevailing party costs. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the trading company did not commit anticipatory repudiation and that the agreement was mutually terminated. The Fifth Circuit also affirmed the denial of prevailing party costs under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the appellate court vacated the denial of attorneys’ fees under the agreement’s fee-shifting provision and remanded for further proceedings on that issue. View "Penthol v. Vertex Energy" on Justia Law

Mosaic Health, Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC

2025-08-06T06:30:07-08:00

A group of federally funded health centers and clinics serving low-income populations alleged that several major drug manufacturers conspired to restrict drug discounts offered through the federal Section 340B Drug Discount Program. The plaintiffs claimed that, beginning in 2020, the manufacturers coordinated efforts to limit the availability of discounted diabetes medications at contract pharmacies, resulting in significant financial losses for safety-net providers. The manufacturers, who are direct competitors in the diabetes drug market, allegedly implemented similar policies within a short timeframe, each restricting or eliminating the discounts in ways that had a comparable anticompetitive effect. After the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York dismissed their first amended complaint and denied leave to file a second amended complaint. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient parallel conduct or factual circumstances suggesting a conspiracy, and thus found the proposed amendments futile. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and applied a de novo standard to both the dismissal and the denial of leave to amend. The Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ proposed second amended complaint alleged enough facts to plausibly infer a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court found that the complaint sufficiently pled both parallel conduct and “plus factors” such as a common motive to conspire, actions against individual economic self-interest, and a high level of interfirm communications. The court also determined that Supreme Court precedents cited by the defendants did not bar the plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to allow the plaintiffs to file their second amended complaint. View "Mosaic Health, Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC" on Justia Law

Arandell Corporation v. Xcel Energy Inc.

2025-08-05T11:30:15-08:00

A group of industrial and commercial purchasers of natural gas in Wisconsin alleged that several gas companies participated in a conspiracy to fix natural gas prices between 2000 and 2002. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants engaged in practices such as wash trading, churning, and false reporting to manipulate published price indices, which in turn affected the prices paid by purchasers in Wisconsin. The plaintiffs sought remedies under Wisconsin antitrust law, including both a “full consideration” refund of payments made under contracts tainted by the conspiracy and treble damages. The litigation was initially consolidated with similar cases from other states in multidistrict proceedings in the District of Nevada, where class certification was denied. After the Ninth Circuit vacated that denial and remanded, the Wisconsin case was returned to the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. There, the plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), relying on expert testimony to show that the alleged price-fixing had a common impact on all class members. The defendants countered with their own experts, arguing that the natural gas market’s complexity and variations in contract terms precluded common proof of impact. The district court certified the class, finding that common questions predominated, but did not fully resolve the disputes between the parties’ experts. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the class certification order. The court held that, under recent Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit precedent, the district court was required to engage in a more rigorous analysis of the conflicting expert evidence regarding antitrust impact and the existence of a national market. The Seventh Circuit vacated the class certification and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to make factual findings on these expert disputes before deciding whether class certification is appropriate. View "Arandell Corporation v. Xcel Energy Inc." on Justia Law

LAS VEGAS SUN, INC. V. ADELSON

2025-08-04T08:30:48-08:00

The case involves a dispute between the owners of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Las Vegas Sun regarding a 2005 joint operating arrangement (JOA). The 2005 JOA amended a 1989 JOA, which had been approved by the U.S. Attorney General under the Newspaper Preservation Act (NPA). The NPA allows failing newspapers to combine operations with another newspaper while maintaining editorial independence, provided they receive prior written consent from the Attorney General. The 2005 JOA was not approved by the Attorney General. The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied the defendants' motion to dissolve a stipulated injunction that required them to continue performing under the 2005 JOA. The district court concluded that the Attorney General's approval was not necessary for the 2005 JOA to be enforceable, interpreting the NPA as only denying antitrust exemption without invalidating the JOA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the 2005 JOA is unlawful and unenforceable under the NPA because it did not receive the required prior written consent from the Attorney General. The court clarified that the language of the NPA is clear and unequivocal, declaring unapproved JOAs to be unlawful to enter into, perform, or enforce. The court also rejected the district court's interpretation that the lack of approval merely meant the parties lacked antitrust exemption. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "LAS VEGAS SUN, INC. V. ADELSON" on Justia Law

EPIC GAMES, INC. V. GOOGLE LLC

2025-07-31T09:02:54-08:00

Epic Games, Inc. filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google after Google removed Epic's Fortnite video game from the Google Play Store for noncompliance with its terms of service. Epic had embedded secret code into Fortnite’s software to bypass Google’s required payment-processing systems, which charged a 30% commission on in-app purchases. The jury found that Epic had proven the relevant product markets for Android app distribution and Android in-app billing services and that Google violated both federal and California antitrust laws by willfully acquiring or maintaining monopoly power in those markets, unreasonably restraining trade, and unlawfully tying the use of the Play Store to Google Play Billing. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered a three-year injunction against Google, prohibiting it from providing certain benefits to app distributors, developers, OEMs, or carriers in exchange for advantaging the Play Store. The injunction also required Google to allow developers to provide users with information about and access to alternative app billing, pricing, and distribution channels. Google appealed the liability verdict and the injunction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict and upheld the district court’s injunction. The court rejected Google’s claim that a decision in Apple’s favor in a similar lawsuit precluded Epic from defining the market differently in this case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with a jury trial on Epic’s equitable claims and Google’s damages counterclaims. The court also found that the injunction was supported by the jury’s verdict and the district court’s own findings, and that the district court had broad discretion to craft the antitrust injunction. View "EPIC GAMES, INC. V. GOOGLE LLC" on Justia Law

Roberta Ann K.W. Wong Leung Revocable Trust v. Amazon.com, Inc.

2025-07-28T10:22:52-08:00

A stockholder of Amazon.com, Inc. sent a letter to the company demanding to inspect its books and records under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The stockholder aimed to investigate potential wrongdoing and mismanagement by Amazon, believing the company engaged in anticompetitive activities in the U.S. and Europe. When the stockholder and Amazon could not agree on certain conditions for producing the records, the stockholder filed an action in the Court of Chancery. A Magistrate in Chancery conducted a one-day trial and concluded that the stockholder did not meet its burden to prove a "credible basis" for inferring possible wrongdoing by Amazon. The stockholder took exceptions to the final report. A Vice Chancellor adopted the final report's conclusion but did not reach its credible basis analysis, instead finding the scope of the stockholder's stated purpose to be "facially improper" and not "lucid." On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware found that the Vice Chancellor erred in interpreting the scope of the stockholder's purpose and was required to engage with the evidence presented. The court determined that the evidence, including a complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission against Amazon for alleged antitrust violations that largely survived a motion to dismiss, established a credible basis from which a court could infer possible wrongdoing by Amazon. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Chancery and remanded for further proceedings to determine the scope and conditions of production consistent with its decision. View "Roberta Ann K.W. Wong Leung Revocable Trust v. Amazon.com, Inc." on Justia Law

Cangrejeros de Santurce Baseball Club, LLC v. Liga de Beisbol Profesional de Puerto Rico, Inc.

2025-07-21T13:30:04-08:00

The case involves a dispute between the former owner-operator of a professional baseball franchise in Puerto Rico and the league, its president, and other franchise owners. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to force the former owner to relinquish control of the franchise, violating the Sherman Act, a federal civil rights statute, and various Puerto Rico laws. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants' actions were in retaliation for the former owner's public criticism of the conditions at the team's stadium and his proposal to move the team to another municipality. The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed the plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims, citing the "business of baseball" exemption. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs' claims under Puerto Rico's antitrust and fair competition laws were preempted by federal law. Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' federal civil rights claim on res judicata grounds, based on a prior judgment from the Superior Court of San Juan. The court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Puerto Rico law claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Sherman Act claims, agreeing that the "business of baseball" exemption applied to the Puerto Rico professional baseball league. However, the court vacated the District Court's dismissal of the Puerto Rico antitrust and fair competition claims, finding that the District Court had incorrectly applied the Supremacy Clause. The court also reversed the dismissal of the federal civil rights claim, concluding that the District Court had misapplied the doctrine of res judicata. Consequently, the court reversed the dismissal of the remaining Puerto Rico law claim, as a federal claim remained in the case. View "Cangrejeros de Santurce Baseball Club, LLC v. Liga de Beisbol Profesional de Puerto Rico, Inc." on Justia Law

East Gate-Logistics Park Chicago, LLC v. CenterPoint Properties Trust

2025-07-21T12:30:33-08:00

East Gate-Logistics Park Chicago, LLC and NorthPoint Development, LLC (the East Gate parties) are involved in a dispute with CenterPoint Properties Trust and its affiliates (the CenterPoint parties) over development projects in the Joliet Intermodal Zone in Illinois. CenterPoint entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with local authorities to build a toll bridge, while East Gate later secured an agreement allowing heavy trucks to bypass this toll bridge, which CenterPoint claims violates the MOU. The CenterPoint parties sued in Will County Court to enjoin the East Gate agreement, initially losing but later securing a preliminary injunction on remand from the Illinois Appellate Court. The state court has yet to rule on the merits. Subsequently, the East Gate parties filed a federal antitrust lawsuit, claiming the MOU unlawfully restricted competition. The CenterPoint parties argued the federal court lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, should abstain under the Colorado River doctrine, and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine shielded them from antitrust liability. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois rejected the Rooker-Feldman argument, dismissed the Noerr-Pennington motion without addressing the merits, but stayed the federal proceedings under Colorado River. The East Gate parties appealed the stay, while the CenterPoint parties cross-appealed the rejection of their motions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, determining that the stay did not effectively end the federal case and was merely a case management decision. The court also found no basis for immediate appeal of the interlocutory orders denying the motions to dismiss, as these could be reviewed after a final decision. View "East Gate-Logistics Park Chicago, LLC v. CenterPoint Properties Trust" on Justia Law

United Wisconsin Grain Producers LLC v. Archer Daniels Midland Co.

2025-07-18T13:03:51-08:00

United Wisconsin Grain Producers LLC, along with six other ethanol producers, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM). They alleged that ADM manipulated indexes used to set U.S. ethanol prices, forcing them to charge lower prices in their ethanol sales contracts. The plaintiffs claimed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and market manipulation under § 2 of the Sherman Act and parallel state laws. The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed the case. The court found that United Wisconsin Grain failed to allege that ADM recouped its losses from below-cost prices by charging monopoly prices, which is necessary for a monopolization claim. Additionally, the plaintiffs waived their challenge to the dismissal of the attempted monopolization claim. The court also noted that the Sherman Act does not recognize a generalized market manipulation claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, agreeing that United Wisconsin Grain did not allege the necessary recoupment by way of monopoly prices for a monopolization claim. The court also concluded that United Wisconsin Grain waived its attempted monopolization claim by not adequately addressing it in their appeal. Lastly, the court held that the Sherman Act does not support a separate market manipulation claim based on generalized harm to the market. Thus, the district court's dismissal of the amended complaint was affirmed. View "United Wisconsin Grain Producers LLC v. Archer Daniels Midland Co." on Justia Law

Fourqurean v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

2025-07-16T08:00:17-08:00

Nyzier Fourqurean, a member of the University of Wisconsin-Madison's football team, challenged the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) under § 1 of the Sherman Act. He argued that the NCAA's Five-Year Rule, which restricts student-athletes to four seasons of competition within a five-year period, unreasonably restrained trade by preventing him from playing a fifth season. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, allowing Fourqurean to play an additional season, reasoning that the Supreme Court's decision in NCAA v. Alston suggested that men's NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) football is a relevant market and that the Five-Year Rule likely had anticompetitive effects. The district court concluded that Fourqurean was likely to succeed on the merits of his claim, citing Alston and the trend in the law since that decision. The court found that the NCAA's Five-Year Rule excluded student-athletes from the market when their marketability for name, image, and likeness (NIL) income was at its peak. The court also acknowledged the rule's procompetitive benefit of linking athletic careers to degree progression but suggested that the NCAA could achieve this with less restrictive means. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Fourqurean failed to define the relevant market independently and did not establish that the Five-Year Rule had anticompetitive effects. The court emphasized that exclusion from the market alone does not suffice to show anticompetitive effects and that Fourqurean did not demonstrate how the rule harmed competition or created, protected, or enhanced the NCAA's dominant position in the market. Consequently, the court found that Fourqurean did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of his Sherman Act claim. View "Fourqurean v. National Collegiate Athletic Association" on Justia Law

Andren v End User Consumer Plaintiff Class

2025-07-02T13:30:47-08:00

A class member objected to the district court's award of attorney's fees in a class action antitrust litigation involving broiler chicken producers. The district court had awarded attorney's fees based on a hypothetical ex ante market for legal services, considering the risk of nonpayment and the normal rate of compensation at the litigation's outset. The objector argued that the district court included skewed fee awards in its calculation. Previously, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois had awarded attorney's fees, but the objector, John Andren, successfully argued on appeal that the court erred by discounting certain auction bids and excluding fee awards from the Ninth Circuit. The Seventh Circuit remanded the case, instructing the district court to reconsider these factors. On remand, the district court awarded a new fee, excluding certain bids and Ninth Circuit awards, and giving significant weight to a specific fee agreement from a comparable case. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court's revised fee award. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain bids and Ninth Circuit awards but erred in relying on a skewed sample of ex post awards. The Seventh Circuit adjusted the fee award by removing non-representative data points, resulting in a revised award of 26.6% of the net common fund. The court affirmed the district court's fee award as modified and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Andren v End User Consumer Plaintiff Class" on Justia Law

COSTAR GROUP, INC. V. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE, INC.

2025-06-23T08:30:49-08:00

CoStar Group, Inc. and CoStar Realty Information, Inc. (collectively, “CoStar”) and Commercial Real Estate Exchange, Inc. (“CREXi”) are online platforms competing in the commercial real estate listing, information, and auction markets. CoStar sued CREXi for copyright infringement, alleging that CREXi listed images and information hosted by CoStar without permission. CREXi counterclaimed on antitrust grounds, asserting that CoStar engaged in monopolistic practices to exclude competition. The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed CREXi’s antitrust counterclaims and directed entry of final judgment on those claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The district court held that CREXi failed to show CoStar had monopoly power and that the agreements at issue were not exclusive. CREXi appealed the dismissal of its antitrust counterclaims. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal of the antitrust counterclaims. The Ninth Circuit held that CREXi successfully stated claims under §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, California’s Cartwright Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. The court found that CREXi plausibly alleged CoStar had monopoly power in the relevant markets and engaged in anticompetitive conduct by entering into de facto exclusive deals with brokers and imposing technological barriers to entry. The court concluded that a monopolist using its power to exclude competitors and maintain monopoly power violates § 2 of the Sherman Act, and using exclusive deals to do so violates § 1 of the Sherman Act and the Cartwright Act. The court also held that CREXi stated claims under the “unfair” and “unlawful” prongs of the Unfair Competition Law. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of CREXi’s tortious interference claims as they were improperly raised. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "COSTAR GROUP, INC. V. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE, INC." on Justia Law

Joyner v. Morrison and Foerster LLP

2025-06-20T06:30:55-08:00

Junius Joyner, III, an African-American male, was hired by a legal staffing agency, Mestel & Company (Hire Counsel), and assigned to work at Morrison & Foerster LLP in Washington, D.C. He worked on the merger of Sprint Corporation with T-Mobile U.S., Inc. from July to December 2019. Joyner alleged several incidents of racial discrimination and a hostile work environment, including delayed work assignments, derogatory comments, and harassment by coworkers. He also claimed wrongful discharge under D.C. law, asserting he was terminated after reporting potential antitrust violations. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Joyner’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that Joyner did not provide sufficient facts to support his claims of racial discrimination and a hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII. The court also dismissed his wrongful discharge claim under D.C. law, concluding that it lacked supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Joyner’s federal claims, agreeing that Joyner failed to plausibly allege that his treatment was racially motivated or that the work environment was sufficiently hostile. The court found that Joyner’s allegations did not meet the necessary standard to infer racial discrimination or a hostile work environment. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s judgment on the wrongful discharge claim, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over this claim and remanded it with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "Joyner v. Morrison and Foerster LLP" on Justia Law

2311 Racing LLC v. National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing

2025-06-05T11:00:38-08:00

Two racing teams, 2311 Racing LLC and Front Row Motorsports, Inc., filed an antitrust lawsuit against the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, LLC (NASCAR) and its CEO, James France. The plaintiffs alleged that NASCAR, as a monopolist, required them to sign a release for past conduct as a condition of participating in the NASCAR Cup Series, which they claimed was anticompetitive. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages. The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court ordered NASCAR to allow the plaintiffs to participate in the Cup Series under the 2025 Charter Agreement terms, excluding the release provision. The district court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Section 2 Sherman Act claim, concluding that a monopolist could not require a release from antitrust claims as a condition of doing business. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the district court's theory of antitrust law was unsupported by any case law. The court found that the release provision did not constitute anticompetitive conduct and that the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. The Fourth Circuit emphasized that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing of entitlement, which the plaintiffs did not meet. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. View "2311 Racing LLC v. National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing" on Justia Law

Becky's Broncos, LLC v. Town of Nantucket

2025-05-23T13:00:04-08:00

In 2023, James Broad and Rebecca McCrensky began operating a car-rental agency, Becky's Broncos, LLC, on Nantucket Island without the necessary local approvals. The Town of Nantucket and the Nantucket Town Select Board ordered Becky's to cease operations. Becky's sought preliminary injunctive relief in the District of Massachusetts to continue their business. The District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Becky's request for a preliminary injunction. The court found insufficient evidence of discriminatory effect under the dormant Commerce Clause and concluded that Becky's had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. Becky's appealed the decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that Becky's did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of its dormant Commerce Clause claim, as the ordinance did not discriminate against out-of-state businesses. The court also found that Becky's failed to establish a likelihood of success on its antitrust claims due to a lack of a concrete theory of liability. Additionally, Becky's procedural due process argument was rejected because it did not establish a property interest in the required medallions. Lastly, the court held that the ordinance survived rational basis review under substantive due process, as it was rationally related to legitimate government interests in managing traffic and congestion on the island. View "Becky's Broncos, LLC v. Town of Nantucket" on Justia Law

PHARMACYCHECKER.COM LLC V. LEGITSCRIPT LLC

2025-05-23T09:02:42-08:00

PharmacyChecker.com LLC, an online pharmacy accreditation and price comparison service, sued its competitor LegitScript LLC for allegedly engaging in a group boycott in violation of antitrust laws. LegitScript moved for summary judgment, arguing that PharmacyChecker lacked antitrust standing because its business facilitated the illegal importation of foreign drugs, thus precluding any legally cognizable injury under Section 4 of the Clayton Act. The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denied LegitScript's motion for summary judgment. The court found that PharmacyChecker's business was legal and that LegitScript had not shown that PharmacyChecker itself engaged in illegal activity. The court also noted that the facilitation of potentially illegal activities by some of PharmacyChecker's users did not bar its antitrust standing. LegitScript's motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal was granted, and the case was brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that PharmacyChecker had antitrust standing under Section 4 of the Clayton Act. The court relied on Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedents, including Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., and Memorex Corp. v. IBM. These cases established that neither the equitable defense of in pari delicto nor unclean hands could bar a plaintiff from bringing an antitrust suit, even if the plaintiff's business involved some illegal conduct. The court concluded that PharmacyChecker's facilitation of potentially illegal drug importation by some users did not negate its standing to sue for antitrust violations. View "PHARMACYCHECKER.COM LLC V. LEGITSCRIPT LLC" on Justia Law

Scharpf v. General Dynamics Corporation

2025-05-09T10:30:19-08:00

Plaintiffs Anthony D’Armiento and Susan Scharpf filed a class action lawsuit against several major shipbuilders and naval-engineering consultancies, alleging a "no-poach" conspiracy to suppress wages by agreeing not to recruit each other’s employees. The plaintiffs, who had not worked for any defendant since 2013, claimed that this conspiracy was concealed through a "non-ink-to-paper" agreement, which they only discovered in April 2023 through an investigation. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case, ruling that it was barred by the Sherman Act’s four-year statute of limitations. The court found that the alleged "non-ink-to-paper" agreement did not constitute an affirmative act of fraudulent concealment that would toll the limitations period. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that an agreement deliberately kept unwritten to avoid detection could qualify as an affirmative act of concealment. The court emphasized that fraudulent concealment can include acts of omission, such as avoiding the creation of written evidence. The court found that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that the defendants engaged in affirmative acts of concealment by maintaining a secret, unwritten no-poach agreement. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs’ allegations met the relaxed Rule 9(b) standard for pleading fraudulent concealment with particularity. The court also determined that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged due diligence, as they were not on inquiry notice of the conspiracy until the investigation in 2023. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Scharpf v. General Dynamics Corporation" on Justia Law

In re: ESML Holdings Inc v. Mesabi Metallics Company LLC

2025-05-08T10:00:09-08:00

Mesabi Metallics Company LLC (Mesabi) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2016 and emerged successfully in 2017. During the bankruptcy proceedings, Mesabi initiated an adversary proceeding against Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. (Cliffs), alleging tortious interference, antitrust violations, and other claims. Mesabi sought to unseal certain documents obtained from Cliffs during discovery, which had been filed under seal pursuant to a protective order. Cliffs opposed the motion, arguing that the documents should remain sealed under Bankruptcy Code § 107, not the common law right of access. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware applied the common law standard from In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, concluding that Cliffs had not met the burden to keep the documents sealed. The court recognized the potential for a different interpretation and certified the question for direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit held that the sealing of documents in bankruptcy cases is governed by § 107 of the Bankruptcy Code, not the common law right of access. The court clarified that § 107 imposes a distinct burden for sealing documents, requiring protection of trade secrets or confidential commercial information if disclosure would cause competitive harm. The court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's order and remanded for application of the correct standard. Additionally, the Third Circuit addressed a separate motion by Greg Heyblom to intervene and unseal the documents. The court concluded that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction to grant Heyblom's motions while the appeal was pending, as it would interfere with the appellate court's jurisdiction. The orders granting Heyblom's motions were vacated. View "In re: ESML Holdings Inc v. Mesabi Metallics Company LLC" on Justia Law

FTC V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

2025-05-07T08:00:31-08:00

The case involves the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) seeking a preliminary injunction to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc., a major video game developer. The FTC argued that the merger would likely violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act by substantially lessening competition in the U.S. markets for gaming console devices, gaming subscription services, and gaming cloud-streaming services. The FTC's primary concern was that Microsoft would make Activision's popular game, Call of Duty, exclusive to its Xbox console, thereby harming competition. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the FTC's motion for a preliminary injunction. The court held a five-day evidentiary hearing and concluded that the FTC had not raised serious questions regarding whether the proposed merger would likely substantially lessen competition. The court found that Microsoft lacked the incentive to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox, as doing so would harm its financial interests and reputation. The court also noted that Activision Blizzard had historically resisted putting its content on subscription services, and there was insufficient evidence to show that this would change absent the merger. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision and affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction. The appellate court agreed that the district court applied the correct legal standards and did not abuse its discretion or rely on clearly erroneous findings. The Ninth Circuit held that the FTC failed to make a sufficient evidentiary showing to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its Section 7 claim. The court concluded that the FTC had not demonstrated that the merger would likely substantially lessen competition in the relevant markets. View "FTC V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION," on Justia Law

ESML Holdings Inc v. Mesabi Metallics Compay LLC,

2025-04-16T09:00:13-08:00

Mesabi Metallics Company LLC (Mesabi) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2016 and emerged successfully in 2017. During the bankruptcy proceedings, Mesabi initiated an adversary proceeding against Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. (Cliffs), alleging tortious interference, antitrust violations, and civil conspiracy. Mesabi claimed Cliffs engaged in anti-competitive conduct to impede Mesabi's business operations. To facilitate discovery, the parties entered a stipulated protective order allowing documents to be designated as confidential. Mesabi later moved to unseal certain documents filed under seal to support a petition in the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, applying the common law right of access, held that Cliffs had not met the burden to keep the documents sealed. The court relied on the Third Circuit's precedent in In re Avandia, which requires a showing that disclosure would cause a clearly defined and serious injury. Recognizing potential ambiguity in the law, the Bankruptcy Court certified the question for direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit clarified that the sealing of documents in bankruptcy cases is governed by 11 U.S.C. § 107, not the common law right of access. Section 107 imposes a distinct burden, requiring protection of trade secrets or confidential commercial information without the need for balancing public and private interests. The court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's decision and remanded for application of the correct standard under § 107. Additionally, the Third Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction to grant a third party's motion to intervene and unseal documents while the appeal was pending, vacating those orders as well. View "ESML Holdings Inc v. Mesabi Metallics Compay LLC," on Justia Law

Boston Market Corporation v Mountainaire Farms, Inc.

2025-04-01T08:30:17-08:00

In this case, plaintiffs in a class action alleged that several corporations in the broiler chicken market violated antitrust laws by engaging in bid rigging and reducing the supply of broiler chickens. The plaintiffs claimed that these actions led to anomalous dips in sales, which they attributed to collusion on price and output. The class action was divided into two tracks: Track 1, which omitted bid-rigging allegations for faster discovery and trial, and Track 2, which included bid-rigging theories and state law claims by indirect purchasers. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois allowed the class to place claims against Simmons Foods, Inc. and Simmons Prepared Foods, Inc. on Track 1. Simmons settled for $8 million, but several class members, including the Boston Market group, objected to the settlement. They argued that the settlement was inadequate and that they should not be included in the class because they had filed their own antitrust suits. However, they missed the deadline to opt out of the class, and the district court approved the settlement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the settlement's release language was broad enough to cover bid-rigging claims and that the $8 million settlement was reasonable. The court noted that the Boston Market group did not provide evidence that the settlement amount was unreasonably low. Additionally, the court observed that the class had lost a related trial and that criminal antitrust prosecutions against some firms had ended in mistrials or acquittals, indicating uncertainty about the plaintiffs' prospects. The court affirmed the district court's approval of the settlement. View "Boston Market Corporation v Mountainaire Farms, Inc." on Justia Law

Davitashvili v. Grubhub

2025-03-13T07:30:07-08:00

Plaintiffs, representing a putative class, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Grubhub Inc., Postmates Inc., and Uber Technologies, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and its state analogues by entering into no-price competition clauses (NPCCs) with restaurants, which prevented the restaurants from offering lower prices through other channels. The plaintiffs claimed that these NPCCs led to artificially high prices for restaurant meals. The class included customers who purchased takeout or delivery directly from restaurants subject to NPCCs, customers who dined in at such restaurants, and customers who used non-defendant platforms to purchase from these restaurants. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The court held that the scope of the arbitration clauses was an issue for the court to decide and that the clauses did not apply to the plaintiffs' claims as they lacked a nexus to the defendants' Terms of Use. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not agreed to Grubhub's Terms of Use. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision in part, ruling that the question of arbitrability for the plaintiffs' claims against Grubhub is for the court to decide and that Grubhub's arbitration clause does not apply to the plaintiffs' antitrust claims. However, the court reversed the district court's decision in part, finding that Grubhub had established an agreement to arbitrate with the plaintiffs and that the threshold question for the plaintiffs' claims against Uber and Postmates is for the arbitrator to decide. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Davitashvili v. Grubhub" on Justia Law

KEY V. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

2025-02-25T09:30:58-08:00

Plaintiffs sued Qualcomm Inc., alleging that its business practices violated state and federal antitrust laws. These practices included Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy, which required cellular manufacturers to license Qualcomm’s patents to purchase its modem chips, and alleged exclusive dealing agreements with Apple and Samsung. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had previously challenged these practices, but the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling in favor of the FTC, holding that Qualcomm did not violate the Sherman Act. The district court in the current case certified a nationwide class, but the Ninth Circuit vacated the class certification order and remanded to consider the viability of plaintiffs’ claims post-FTC v. Qualcomm. On remand, plaintiffs proceeded with state-law claims under California’s Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The district court dismissed the tying claims and granted summary judgment on the exclusive dealing claims. The court found that the Cartwright Act did not depart from the Sherman Act and that plaintiffs failed to show market foreclosure or anticompetitive impact in the tied product market. The court also rejected the UCL claims, finding no fraudulent practices and determining that plaintiffs could not seek equitable relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the tying claims and the summary judgment on the exclusive dealing claims under the Cartwright Act. The court held that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy was not anticompetitive and that plaintiffs failed to show substantial market foreclosure or antitrust injury. The court also affirmed the rejection of the UCL claims but vacated the summary judgment on the UCL unfairness claim related to exclusive dealing, remanding with instructions to dismiss that claim without prejudice for refiling in state court. View "KEY V. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED" on Justia Law

Mr. Dee's Inc. v. Inmar, Inc.

2025-02-12T13:30:48-08:00

Plaintiffs, purchasers of coupon processing services, alleged that Inmar, Inc. and its subsidiaries engaged in an anticompetitive conspiracy to raise coupon processing fees. They sought class certification for a manufacturer purchaser class. The district court rejected their attempts to certify the class, leading to this appeal. The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied plaintiffs' first two motions for class certification. The first was denied due to discovery issues, and the second was rejected as an impermissible fail-safe class. Plaintiffs' third motion proposed three different class definitions: the Fixed List Class, the Limited Payer Class, and the All Payer Class. The district court rejected all three, finding the Fixed List Class to be a fail-safe class, the Limited Payer Class to be unascertainable and excluding too many injured manufacturers, and the All Payer Class to fail the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) due to a high percentage of uninjured members. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision and affirmed the denial of class certification. The court found that the Fixed List Class failed to define a class and improperly shifted the burden to the district court. The Limited Payer Class was deemed unascertainable and not superior due to its exclusion of many injured manufacturers. The All Payer Class failed the predominance requirement as the plaintiffs' expert did not show injury for 32% of the class members, raising both predominance and standing issues. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification. View "Mr. Dee's Inc. v. Inmar, Inc." on Justia Law

Association of Surgical Assistants v. National Board of Surgical Technology

2025-01-21T10:01:42-08:00

The case involves the certification process for Surgical Technologists and Surgical Assistants, who assist surgeons in the operating room. The Association of Surgical Technologists (AST) represents Technologists, and the Association of Surgical Assistants (ASA) represents Assistants. The National Board of Surgical Technology and Surgical Assisting (NBSTSA) certifies both professions. To maintain certification, professionals must either log continuing education credits or retake a certification exam. NBSTSA has only authorized AST to provide continuing education services, and ASA sought to become an authorized provider but was denied. ASA sued NBSTSA and AST in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging antitrust violations and tortious business interference. The district court dismissed ASA’s complaint, finding that ASA failed to establish a relevant market, monopoly power, a plausible conspiracy, and antitrust injuries. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, agreeing that ASA did not define the relevant market with reference to reasonable interchangeability and cross-elasticity of demand. The court noted that ASA’s proposed market definition was too narrow and did not consider competing certifications or the option to recertify by examination. Additionally, the court found that ASA failed to allege a plausible conspiracy between NBSTSA and AST, as the allegations were conclusory and lacked specific factual support. The court also concluded that ASA did not demonstrate a cognizable antitrust injury, as the alleged harm was derivative and did not stem from a competition-reducing aspect of the defendants' behavior. View "Association of Surgical Assistants v. National Board of Surgical Technology" on Justia Law

TERADATA CORPORATION V. SAP SE

2024-12-19T08:31:07-08:00

Teradata Corporation sued SAP SE, alleging that SAP illegally conditioned sales of its business-management software (S/4HANA) on the purchase of its back-end database engine (HANA) in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and misappropriated Teradata’s trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Teradata claimed that SAP’s tying arrangement forced customers to buy HANA, harming competition in the enterprise data warehousing (EDW) market. Teradata also alleged that SAP used its confidential batched merge method, a technique for efficient data aggregation, without authorization. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of SAP. The court excluded Teradata’s expert testimony on market definition and market power, finding the methodology unreliable. Without this testimony, the court concluded that Teradata failed to create a material dispute on its tying claim. The court also ruled against Teradata on the trade secret claim, stating that Teradata did not properly designate the batched merge method as confidential and that the agreements between the parties gave SAP the right to use the method. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment. The appellate court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the expert’s testimony, which was based on reasonable methodologies. The court found that Teradata raised a triable issue regarding SAP’s market power in the tying market and the anticompetitive effects in the tied market. The court also determined that there were material factual disputes regarding whether Teradata properly designated the batched merge method as confidential and whether the agreements allowed SAP to use the method. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "TERADATA CORPORATION V. SAP SE" on Justia Law

Phhhoto Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

2024-12-10T08:00:08-08:00

Phhhoto Inc. filed a lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc., alleging that Meta engaged in anticompetitive practices that harmed Phhhoto's business. Phhhoto claimed that Meta's introduction of an algorithmic feed on Instagram in March 2016 suppressed Phhhoto's content, leading to a significant decline in user engagement and new registrations. Phhhoto argued that Meta's actions, including withdrawing access to Instagram's Find Friends API, terminating a joint project, and releasing a competing app called Boomerang, were part of a scheme to monopolize the market and eliminate Phhhoto as a competitor. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Phhhoto's claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), ruling that it was time-barred by the four-year statute of limitations under the Sherman Act. The court found that Phhhoto's claim accrued outside the limitations period and that equitable tolling did not apply because Phhhoto failed to demonstrate fraudulent concealment by Meta. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case de novo and concluded that Phhhoto sufficiently alleged that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled due to Meta's fraudulent concealment. The court found that Meta's public statements about the algorithmic feed were misleading and constituted affirmative acts of concealment. The court also determined that Phhhoto did not have actual or inquiry notice of its antitrust claim until October 25, 2017, when it discovered evidence suggesting Meta's anticompetitive behavior. The court held that Phhhoto's continued ignorance of the claim was not due to a lack of diligence. The Second Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Phhhoto's antitrust claim to proceed. View "Phhhoto Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc." on Justia Law

Kress Stores of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc.

2024-11-12T14:30:03-08:00

Local Puerto Rico merchants brought unfair competition claims against major big-box retailers, alleging that during the COVID-19 pandemic, Costco Wholesale Corp. and Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc. violated executive orders limiting sales to essential goods. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants continued to sell non-essential items, capturing sales that would have otherwise gone to local retailers, and sought damages for lost sales during the 72-day period the orders were in effect. The case was initially filed as a putative class action in Puerto Rico's Court of First Instance. Costco removed the case to federal district court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The district court denied Costco's motion to sever the claims against it and also denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court. The district court dismissed most of the plaintiffs' claims but allowed the unfair competition claim to proceed. However, it later denied class certification and granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that the executive orders did not create an enforceable duty on the part of Costco and Wal-Mart. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case on jurisdictional grounds. The court held that CAFA jurisdiction is not lost when a district court denies class certification. It also held that CAFA's "home state" exception did not apply because Costco, a non-local defendant, was a primary defendant. However, the court found that CAFA's "local controversy" exception applied because the conduct of Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, a local defendant, formed a significant basis for the claims. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Costco's motion to sever and determined that the entire case should be remanded to the Puerto Rico courts. The court reversed the district court's denial of the motion to remand, vacated the judgment on the merits for lack of jurisdiction, and instructed the district court to remand the case to the Puerto Rico courts. View "Kress Stores of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc." on Justia Law

US v. American Airlines Group Inc.

2024-11-08T10:00:03-08:00

In 2020, American Airlines and JetBlue Airways formed the Northeast Alliance (NEA), a joint venture to operate as a single airline for most routes in and out of Boston and New York City. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), along with several states, sued to stop the NEA, claiming it violated the Sherman Act by unreasonably restraining competition. After a bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the NEA reduced competition and output without sufficient procompetitive benefits. American Airlines appealed the decision. The district court found that the NEA caused American and JetBlue to stop competing on overlapping routes, leading to decreased capacity and reduced consumer choices. The court also found that the NEA's schedule coordination and revenue-sharing provisions effectively merged the two airlines' operations in the Northeast, which resembled illegal market allocation. The court rejected the airlines' claims that the NEA increased capacity and provided significant consumer benefits, finding these claims unsupported by reliable evidence. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the NEA had substantial anticompetitive effects. The appellate court found no clear error in the district court's factual findings and upheld its application of the rule of reason. The court concluded that the NEA's harms outweighed any procompetitive benefits, which could have been achieved through less restrictive means. The judgment of the district court was affirmed, and the NEA was enjoined from further implementation. View "US v. American Airlines Group Inc." on Justia Law

HECKMAN V. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

2024-10-28T08:00:27-08:00

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., and Ticketmaster LLC, alleging anticompetitive practices in violation of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs had purchased tickets through Ticketmaster’s website, which required them to agree to Ticketmaster’s Terms of Use. These terms included an arbitration agreement mandating that disputes be resolved by an arbitrator from New Era ADR, using expedited/mass arbitration procedures. The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The court found that the clause delegating the authority to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement to the arbitrator was unconscionable under California law, both procedurally and substantively. The court also held that the entire arbitration agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable. The defendants appealed this decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the delegation clause and the arbitration agreement as a whole were unconscionable under California law. The court found that the delegation clause was part of a contract of adhesion and that the terms on Ticketmaster’s website exhibited extreme procedural unconscionability. Additionally, the court identified several features of New Era’s arbitration rules that contributed to substantive unconscionability, including the mass arbitration protocol, lack of discovery, limited right of appeal, and arbitrator selection provisions. The Ninth Circuit also held that the application of California’s unconscionability law to the arbitration agreement was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). As an alternate and independent ground, the court held that the FAA does not preempt California’s prohibition of class action waivers in contracts of adhesion in large-scale small-stakes consumer cases, as established in Discover Bank v. Superior Court. The court concluded that Ticketmaster’s Terms and New Era’s Rules were independently unconscionable under Discover Bank. The decision of the district court was affirmed. View "HECKMAN V. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC." on Justia Law

D'Augusta v. American Petroleum Institute

2024-09-16T08:30:32-08:00

Gasoline consumers alleged that various oil producers colluded with the U.S. government, including then-President Trump, to negotiate with Russia and Saudi Arabia to cut oil production, limit future oil exploration, and end a price war on oil. Plaintiffs claimed this agreement fixed gas prices in violation of Sherman Act § 1, suppressed competition in violation of Sherman Act § 2, and involved anticompetitive mergers in violation of Clayton Act § 7. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case, finding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the political question and act of state doctrines. The court also found that Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead an antitrust conspiracy. Additionally, the court dismissed Defendant Energy Transfer for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, as well as requests for additional discovery and oral argument. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that the political question doctrine barred judicial review of the President’s foreign policy decisions, as these decisions are committed to the political branches of government. The court also found no judicially manageable standards to resolve the claims under antitrust laws. Additionally, the act of state doctrine barred the claims because they involved evaluating the petroleum policies of foreign nations. The court further held that Plaintiffs failed to state a plausible antitrust conspiracy claim regarding Defendants’ private conduct. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s procedural rulings. View "D'Augusta v. American Petroleum Institute" on Justia Law

CSX Transportation, Incorporated v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company

2024-08-29T11:00:54-08:00

CSX Transportation, Inc. sued Norfolk Southern Railway Company and Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Company in 2018, alleging that they conspired to exclude CSX from competing in the international shipping market at the Norfolk International Terminal by imposing an exclusionary switch rate starting in 2010. CSX claimed this rate caused ongoing injury to its business. The key issue was whether the Sherman Act’s four-year statute of limitations barred CSX’s claims or if an exception applied. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding CSX’s claims time-barred. The court held that the continuing-violation doctrine did not apply because the decision to maintain the switch rate did not constitute a new act causing new injury within the limitations period. The court also found that CSX failed to show specific damages resulting from any acts within the limitations period. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the continuing-violation doctrine did not apply because maintaining the switch rate was not a new act but a continuation of the initial decision. The court also found that CSX did not provide sufficient evidence of new antitrust injury within the limitations period. The court emphasized that for the continuing-violation doctrine to apply, there must be an overt act within the limitations period that causes new injury, which CSX failed to demonstrate. Therefore, the court held that CSX’s claims were time-barred and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "CSX Transportation, Incorporated v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company" on Justia Law

Tesla v. Louisiana Automobile Dealers

2024-08-26T15:30:15-08:00

Tesla, Inc. and its affiliates challenged a Louisiana law that prohibits automobile manufacturers from selling directly to consumers and performing warranty services for cars they do not own. Tesla alleged that the law violated federal antitrust law, due process rights, and equal protection rights. The defendants included the Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission, its commissioners, the Louisiana Automobile Dealers Association (LADA), and various dealerships. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed Tesla's claims. The court found that the private defendants were immune from antitrust liability, Tesla had not plausibly pleaded a Sherman Act violation against the governmental defendants, there was insufficient probability of actual bias to support the due process claim, and the regulations passed rational-basis review for the equal protection claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the dismissal of Tesla's due process claim, finding that Tesla had plausibly alleged that the Commission's composition and actions created a possible bias against Tesla, violating due process. The court vacated and remanded the dismissal of the antitrust claim, noting that the due process ruling fundamentally altered the grounds for Tesla's alleged antitrust injury. The court affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection claim, holding that the regulations had a rational basis in preventing vertical integration and controlling the automobile retail market. In summary, the Fifth Circuit reversed the due process claim dismissal, vacated and remanded the antitrust claim dismissal, and affirmed the equal protection claim dismissal. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. View "Tesla v. Louisiana Automobile Dealers" on Justia Law

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v. NTE Carolinas II, LLC

2024-08-05T10:30:20-08:00

A power company based in Florida sued a North Carolina-based power company, alleging that the latter had monopoly power in the wholesale power market in the Carolinas and maintained that power through anticompetitive conduct, violating § 2 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiff presented evidence that the defendant devised a plan to exclude the plaintiff from competing for the business of Fayetteville, North Carolina, the only major customer whose contract was expiring soon enough for the plaintiff to compete. The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court found that while there was a question of fact regarding the defendant's monopoly power, the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant engaged in anticompetitive conduct. The court concluded that the defendant's actions constituted legitimate competition to retain Fayetteville’s business. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred by compartmentalizing the defendant's conduct rather than considering it as a whole. The appellate court noted that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to show that the defendant's conduct, including a blend-and-extend strategy and interference with the plaintiff's interconnection efforts, could be seen as part of a coordinated anticompetitive campaign. The court held that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether the defendant's actions were anticompetitive. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court also ordered that the case be assigned to a different judge, citing the principle that once a judge recuses himself, he should remain recused from the case. View "Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v. NTE Carolinas II, LLC" on Justia Law

Litovich v. Bank of America Corp.

2024-07-02T06:30:10-08:00

The case involves a group of bond investors (plaintiffs) who bought and sold certain types of corporate bonds from and to a group of financial institutions and major dealers in the corporate bond market (defendants). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated antitrust laws by engaging in a pattern of parallel conduct and anticompetitive collusion to restrict forms of competition that would have improved odd-lot pricing for bond investors. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. Several months after the district court's order, it was discovered that the district court judge had presided over part of the case while his wife owned stock in one of the defendants. Although she had divested that stock before the district court judge issued his decision, the plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the district court judge should have disqualified himself due to this prior financial interest of his wife. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was tasked with deciding whether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, vacatur was warranted because the district court judge was required to disqualify himself before issuing his decision. The court concluded that while there was no outright conflict when the district court judge ruled on the merits of this action, § 455(a) and related precedents required pre-judgment disqualification, thus vacatur was warranted. As a result, the court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Litovich v. Bank of America Corp." on Justia Law

Drabinsky v. Actors' Equity Association

2024-07-02T06:30:09-08:00

Broadway producer Garth Drabinsky alleged that the Actors’ Equity Association, a union representing theater actors and stage managers, unlawfully boycotted, defamed, and harassed him during his production of the musical Paradise Square. Drabinsky brought antitrust claims and New York state tort claims against the union. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that Drabinsky’s antitrust claims were barred by the statutory labor exemption derived from the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 and the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932. The court also held that his tort claims were barred under Martin v. Curran, a New York state case that requires a plaintiff seeking to hold a union liable for tortious wrongs to allege the individual liability of every single member. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court concluded that an antitrust plaintiff suing a union bears the burden of proving that the statutory labor exemption does not apply. The court found that Drabinsky failed to meet this burden, as the union was acting in its self-interest and did not combine with non-labor groups. The court also agreed with the lower court that Drabinsky's state-law tort claims were barred by the Martin v. Curran rule. View "Drabinsky v. Actors' Equity Association" on Justia Law

SC Dept of Parks, Recreation and Tourism v. Google LLC

2024-06-05T10:30:20-08:00

The case involves the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (SCPRT) and Google LLC. The State of South Carolina, along with several other states, sued Google for violations of federal and state antitrust laws. Google subpoenaed SCPRT for discovery pertinent to its defense. SCPRT refused to comply, asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity and moved to quash the subpoena. The district court denied SCPRT's motion, holding that any Eleventh Amendment immunity that SCPRT may have otherwise been entitled to assert was waived when the State, through its attorney general, voluntarily joined the federal lawsuit against Google. SCPRT appealed this decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that by joining the lawsuit against Google, the State voluntarily invoked the jurisdiction of a federal court, thereby effecting a waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity as to all matters arising in that suit. And because SCPRT’s immunity derives solely from that of the State, South Carolina’s waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity equally effected a waiver of SCPRT’s immunity. The district court, therefore, properly denied SCPRT’s motion to quash. View "SC Dept of Parks, Recreation and Tourism v. Google LLC" on Justia Law

SIDIBE V. SUTTER HEALTH

2024-06-04T08:00:55-08:00

A class of individuals and businesses in Northern California, who paid health insurance premiums to certain health plans, sued Sutter Health, a healthcare system operator in the region. They alleged that Sutter abused its market power to charge supracompetitive rates to these health plans, which were then passed on to the class in the form of higher premiums. The case went to trial on claims under California’s Cartwright Act for tying and unreasonable course of conduct. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Sutter. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury to consider Sutter’s anticompetitive purpose and by excluding evidence of Sutter’s conduct before 2006. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs. It held that the district court contravened California law by removing “purpose” from the jury instructions, and that the legal error was not harmless. The court also held that the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 in excluding as minimally relevant all evidence of Sutter’s conduct before 2006. The court concluded that these errors were prejudicial and reversed the district court’s judgment, remanding the case for a new trial. View "SIDIBE V. SUTTER HEALTH" on Justia Law

In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation

2024-05-13T06:30:07-08:00

The case involves a dispute over the antitrust implications of a settlement agreement between Forest Laboratories, a brand manufacturer of the high-blood pressure drug Bystolic, and seven manufacturers of generic versions of Bystolic. The settlement agreement was reached after Forest Laboratories initiated patent-infringement litigation against the generic manufacturers. As part of the settlement, Forest Laboratories entered into separate business transactions with each generic manufacturer, paying them for goods and services. The plaintiffs, purchasers of Bystolic and its generic equivalents, filed a lawsuit against Forest Laboratories and the generic manufacturers, alleging that the payments constituted unlawful “reverse” settlement payments intended to delay the market entry of generic Bystolic. The plaintiffs' claims were dismissed twice by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for failure to state a claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that any of Forest’s payments were unjustified or unexplained, instead of constituting fair value for goods and services obtained as a result of arms-length dealings. The court also held that the district court’s application of the pleading law was appropriate. The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that Forest’s payments were a pretext for nefarious anticompetitive motives rather than payments that constituted fair value for goods and services obtained as a result of arms-length dealings. View "In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

Symons Emergency Specialties v. City of Riverside

2024-05-01T08:30:41-08:00

The case involves Symons Emergency Specialties (Symons), a provider of ambulance services, and the City of Riverside. The City regulates ambulance services within its limits under the Riverside Municipal Code (RMC), which requires operators to obtain a valid franchise or permit. Symons filed a civil complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the City, arguing that the RMC section requiring a permit is invalid under the Emergency Medical Services System and Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Act (EMS Act). The dispute centered on whether the City had regulated nonemergency ambulance services as of June 1, 1980, which would allow it to continue doing so under the EMS Act's grandfathering provisions. The trial court found in favor of the City, concluding that Symons had failed to meet its burden of proof. Symons appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting certain testimonies, that the court's factual finding was not supported by substantial evidence, and that the RMC section violated federal anti-trust law. The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Two affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court found no error in the admission of testimonies, concluded that substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings, and rejected Symons's anti-trust argument. The court held that the City's regulation of ambulance services did not violate the EMS Act or federal anti-trust law. View "Symons Emergency Specialties v. City of Riverside" on Justia Law

Pit Row, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

2024-04-30T09:31:08-08:00

This case involves a dozen gas stations in the Green Bay, Wisconsin area, who alleged that Costco Wholesale Corporation violated a Wisconsin law prohibiting the sale of gasoline below a statutorily defined cost. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent Costco from selling gasoline below that level and damages of over half a million dollars each. Costco argued that it lowered its prices to match a competitor's price, which the statute allows, and that the plaintiffs failed to establish the causal element of the statutory claim. The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which sided with Costco and awarded it summary judgment. The plaintiffs appealed this decision, challenging both the summary judgment and an evidentiary ruling made earlier in the proceedings. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that for 238 of the 256 days in question, Costco was immune from liability under the "meeting competition" exception in the Wisconsin law. For the remaining 18 days, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that they were injured or threatened with injury as a result of Costco's actions. The court also upheld the lower court's denial of the plaintiffs' request to supplement their expert report. View "Pit Row, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation" on Justia Law

Beverage v. Apple, Inc.

2024-04-25T15:01:30-08:00

This case involves a dispute between plaintiffs Michelle Beverage and Joseph Mejia, and defendant Apple, Inc. The plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging that Apple's restrictive contractual terms and coercive conduct towards software developers on its App Store constituted unlawful and unfair practices that violated the Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The plaintiffs specifically focused on Apple's treatment of one developer, Epic Games, Inc., and its gaming application, Fortnite. The trial court sustained a demurrer brought by Apple without leave to amend, applying the Colgate doctrine and the holding of Chavez v. Whirlpool Corporation. The court determined that the plaintiffs did not and could not state causes of action under either legal regime as a matter of law. The trial court's decision was based on the application of the Colgate doctrine and the holding of Chavez v. Whirlpool Corporation. The court found that the plaintiffs did not and could not state causes of action under either the Cartwright Act or the UCL as a matter of law. The plaintiffs appealed only one aspect of the trial court's ruling, arguing that the court erred by relying on Chavez to sustain the demurrer to their UCL cause of action alleging unfair practices by Apple towards Epic Games. The Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court disagreed with the plaintiffs' argument that Chavez was inconsistent with the California Supreme Court’s decision in Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company. The court found that the trial court correctly relied on Chavez to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend. The court held that the plaintiffs did not state a claim as a matter of law under the "unfair" prong of the UCL, considering the trial court's ruling that Apple's practices constituted permissible unilateral conduct. View "Beverage v. Apple, Inc." on Justia Law

National Association of Realtors v. United States

2024-04-05T06:33:31-08:00

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated an investigation into potentially anti-competitive practices in the real estate industry by the National Association of Realtors (NAR). In November 2020, the DOJ and NAR reached a settlement, and the DOJ sent a letter to NAR stating that it had closed its investigation and that NAR was not required to respond to two outstanding investigative subpoenas. However, in July 2021, the DOJ withdrew the proposed consent judgment, reopened its investigation, and issued a new investigative subpoena. NAR petitioned the district court to set aside the subpoena, arguing that its issuance violated a promise made by the DOJ in the 2020 closing letter. The district court granted NAR’s petition, concluding that the new subpoena was barred by a validly executed settlement agreement. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed with the district court's decision. The court held that the plain language of the disputed 2020 letter permits the DOJ to reopen its investigation. The court noted that the closing of an investigation does not guarantee that the investigation would stay closed forever. The court also pointed out that NAR gained several benefits from the closing of the DOJ’s pending investigation in 2020, including relief from its obligation to respond to the two outstanding subpoenas. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "National Association of Realtors v. United States" on Justia Law

United States v. Tipton

2024-03-18T11:00:38-08:00

This consolidated opinion, delivered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, pertains to the appeals of defendants Richard Tipton and James Roane, Jr. Both were convicted in 1993 and sentenced to death and multiple years in prison for involvement in a drug-related enterprise that also included firearms, murders, and other racketeering activity. They have consistently sought post-conviction relief, and in light of recent Supreme Court decisions, they contested their sentences related to their firearm-related 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) convictions in 1993. The court affirmed the district court's decisions, rejecting the defendants' challenges to their § 924(c) sentences. The court concluded that Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity (VICAR) murder constitutes a "crime of violence" under § 924(c). The defendants failed to demonstrate that there was more than a reasonable possibility that the jury did not rely on the valid VICAR murder predicate for any of their § 924(c) convictions. Therefore, the validity of any other alleged § 924(c) predicate did not need to be decided. The court held that the defendants' § 924(c) convictions and sentences were legally sound. View "United States v. Tipton" on Justia Law

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG

2024-03-18T07:00:21-08:00

The case was heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit between Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the plaintiff-appellant, against Novartis Pharma AG and associates, the defendants-appellees. Regeneron appealed the judgment from the district court which dismissed its claims of antitrust violations and tortious interference with contract under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Regeneron and Novartis both manufacture medications to treat overproduction of a specific protein. The crux of the dispute was whether the medications, which come in vials and prefilled syringes (PFSs), compete in the same or in different product markets. Regeneron claimed that Novartis and its co-defendant Vetter Pharma International GmbH concealed their collaboration to produce a PFS version of Novartis’s drug, thereby delaying the launch of Regeneron's own PFS version and allowing Novartis to increase its market share. The district court had granted the motion to dismiss, reasoning that Regeneron failed to plausibly allege that the relevant antitrust market was limited to PFSs. The court also dismissed Regeneron’s tortious interference claim as untimely. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that Regeneron had provided a plausible explanation that the market for PFSs was distinct from that for vials. It also held that Regeneron adequately pleaded that Novartis was equitably estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense to the tortious interference claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG" on Justia Law

In re: Abbott Laboratories

2024-03-11T09:00:29-08:00

The case in question is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Abbott Laboratories, Abbvie Inc., Abbvie Products LLC, Unimed Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Besins Healthcare, Inc. These petitioners were involved in a patent and antitrust lawsuit concerning the drug AndroGel 1%. They sought a writ of mandamus after a district judge ruled that the application of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege justified an order compelling the production of certain documents. The Petitioners claimed those documents were privileged. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied their petition. The court reasoned that the petitioners failed to meet the high standard for granting a petition for writ of mandamus. Specifically, they failed to show a clear and indisputable abuse of discretion or error of law, a lack of an alternate avenue for adequate relief, and a likelihood of irreparable injury. The court also found that the district court did not err in its interpretation of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege as it applies to sham litigation. The court held that sham litigation, which involves a client’s intentional “misuse” of the legal process for an “improper purpose,” can trigger the crime-fraud exception. The court also rejected the argument that a "reliance" requirement must be applied in this context. View "In re: Abbott Laboratories" on Justia Law

In re: Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation

2024-02-09T07:30:56-08:00

In this case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the plaintiffs were U.S. investors who purchased Mexican government bonds. They alleged that the defendants, Mexican branches of several multinational banks, conspired to fix the prices of the bonds. The defendants sold the bonds to the plaintiffs through non-party broker-dealers. The defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the District Court granted the motion, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction as the alleged misconduct, price-fixing of bonds, occurred solely in Mexico. Upon appeal, the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the case. The court found that the defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with New York as they had solicited and executed bond sales through their agents, the broker-dealers. The plaintiffs' claims arose from or were related to these contacts. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the alleged wrongdoing must occur in the jurisdiction for personal jurisdiction to exist, stating that the defendants' alleged active sales of price-fixed bonds through their agents in New York sufficed to establish personal jurisdiction. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "In re: Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

In re Treasury Securities Auction Antitrust Litigation

2024-02-01T07:30:09-08:00

A group of 18 pension and retirement funds and other investors alleged that 10 large banks conspired to rig U.S. Treasury auctions and boycott the emergence of direct, "all-to-all" trading between buy-side investors on the secondary market for Treasuries. The alleged conspiracies violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The investors failed to demonstrate that the banks formed an anticompetitive agreement, which is necessary to plead their antitrust claims. The allegations of wrongful information-sharing amounted to inconsequential market chatter and their statistical analyses were not sufficiently focused on the defendant banks. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit, agreeing that the investors failed to plausibly allege that the banks engaged in a conspiracy to rig Treasury auctions or to conduct a boycott on the secondary market. View "In re Treasury Securities Auction Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

Chicoine v. Wellmark, Inc.

2024-01-26T07:03:38-08:00

In this case, three chiropractors and their respective business entities sued Wellmark, Iowa’s largest health insurer and claims administrator, alleging that the company violated Iowa antitrust laws through its Administrative Service Agreements with over 400 Iowa employers who self-fund healthcare benefits for their employees. The chiropractors argued that without these agreements, the self-funded employers would compete independently for chiropractic services, resulting in higher profits for chiropractors. The chiropractors filed a motion to certify a class of approximately 1,300 Iowa chiropractors. However, the Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the district court's decision to deny class certification, concluding that the chiropractors failed to meet the predominance requirement for class certification as they could not prove the threshold issue of antitrust injury on a classwide basis. The court found that proving whether individual chiropractors would be better or worse off without Wellmark’s agreements would require numerous mini-trials, and thus, individual questions predominated over common questions. Additionally, the court applied the doctrine of judicial estoppel to prevent the chiropractors from belatedly reviving a different liability theory that they had previously abandoned to avoid a motion to dismiss. View "Chicoine v. Wellmark, Inc." on Justia Law

State ex rel. Raoul v. Elite Staffing, Inc.

2024-01-19T07:32:49-08:00

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, the State of Illinois, represented by the Attorney General, alleged that Elite Staffing, Inc., Metro Staff, Inc., and Midway Staffing, Inc. (collectively, the staffing agencies) violated the Illinois Antitrust Act. The agencies, which supplied temporary workers to a company called Colony Display, were claimed to have agreed to fix wages for their employees at below-market rates and agreed not to hire each other's employees. The staffing agencies argued that the Act did not apply to the charged conduct, and the case was sent to the Supreme Court for interlocutory review. The Supreme Court held that the Illinois Antitrust Act does not exempt agreements between competitors to hold down wages and to limit employment opportunities for their employees from antitrust scrutiny. For the purposes of the Act, the court clarified that "service" does not exclude all agreements concerning labor services. It particularly noted that multiemployer agreements concerning wages they will pay their employees and whether they will hire each other's employees may violate the Act unless the agreement arises as part of the bargaining process and the affected employees, through their collective bargaining representatives, have sought to bargain with the multiemployer unit. The court vacated the appellate court’s answer to a question it had formulated and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State ex rel. Raoul v. Elite Staffing, Inc." on Justia Law

Campfield v. Safelite Group, Inc.

2024-01-16T12:31:04-08:00

In a dispute between Ultra Bond, Inc., and its owner, Richard Campfield (collectively "Ultra Bond"), and Safelite Group, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively "Safelite"), both parties operate in the vehicle glass repair and replacement industry. Ultra Bond alleges that Safelite violated the Lanham Act by falsely advertising that windshield cracks longer than six inches could not be safely repaired and instead required replacement of the entire windshield. Safelite counterclaims that Ultra Bond stole trade secrets from Safelite in violation of state and federal law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the district court was incorrect to grant summary judgment to Safelite on Ultra Bond’s Lanham Act claim. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Safelite's allegedly false statements may have caused economic injury to Ultra Bond, and this issue should go to a jury. The court also affirmed the district court's decision that Safelite's claims for conversion, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference with contract were preempted by the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (OUTSA). However, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ultra Bond on Safelite’s claim under OUTSA, ruling that Safelite's claim was not time-barred and should be evaluated further in the lower court. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ultra Bond on Safelite's unfair competition claim, finding that Safelite hadn't provided enough evidence to support its claim that Ultra Bond's statements were false or that they had led to a diversion of customers from Safelite to Ultra Bond. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Campfield v. Safelite Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The State of Missouri v. The Peoples Republic of China

2024-01-10T08:01:08-08:00

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in a case brought by the State of Missouri against several Chinese entities, including the government of the People's Republic of China, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and others. Missouri accused the defendants of negligence in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, alleging that they allowed the virus to spread worldwide, engaged in a campaign to keep other countries from learning about the virus, and hoarded personal protective equipment (PPE). The court decided that most of Missouri's claims were blocked by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally protects foreign states from lawsuits in U.S. courts. However, the court allowed one claim to proceed: the allegation that China hoarded PPE while the rest of the world was unaware of the extent of the virus. The court held that this claim fell under the "commercial activity" exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, as it involved alleged anti-competitive behavior that had a direct effect in the United States. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this claim. View "The State of Missouri v. The Peoples Republic of China" on Justia Law

Winn Dixie Stores v. Eastern Mushroom Marketing Cooperative Inc

2023-12-26T12:00:59-08:00

The case involved a dispute between Winn-Dixie Stores and the Eastern Mushroom Marketing Cooperative, Inc. (EMMC), its individual mushroom farmer members, and certain downstream distributors. Winn-Dixie accused the defendants of violating antitrust laws by engaging in a price-fixing agreement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the District Court was correct in applying the rule of reason, rather than a "quick-look" review, in assessing the legality of the defendants' pricing policy under the Sherman Act. The court found that the complex and variable nature of the arrangements within the cooperative, involving both horizontal and vertical components, necessitated a careful analysis to determine anticompetitive effects. The court also held that the jury's verdict, which found that the defendants' pricing policy did not harm competition, was not against the weight of the evidence and did not warrant a new trial. The court affirmed the District Court’s judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Winn Dixie Stores v. Eastern Mushroom Marketing Cooperative Inc" on Justia Law

U.S. WHOLESALE OUTLET & DISTR. V. INNOVATION VENTURES, LLC

2023-12-22T09:31:20-08:00

In this case, a group of California wholesale businesses, the plaintiffs, brought a lawsuit against Innovation Ventures, LLC, and Living Essentials, LLC, the defendants, under the Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act. The plaintiffs accused the defendants of offering less favorable pricing, discounts, and reimbursements to them than to the Costco Wholesale Corporation for the sale of 5-hour Energy drink. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury that the plaintiffs needed to show that Living Essentials made “reasonably contemporaneous” sales to them and to Costco at different prices and that the price discrimination was not justified by functional discounts compensating Costco for marketing or promotional functions. The court concluded that the functional discount doctrine was available to the defendants, regardless of whether the plaintiffs and Living Essentials were on the same level in the distribution chain. However, the court vacated the district court's ruling on the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief under section 2(d) of the Robinson-Patman Act. This section prohibits a seller from providing anything of value to one customer unless it is available on proportionally equal terms to all other competing customers. The court found that the district court committed legal and factual errors in determining that Costco and the plaintiffs operated at different functional levels and therefore competed for different customers of 5-hour Energy. The case was remanded for the district court to reconsider whether Costco and the plaintiffs purchased 5-hour Energy from Living Essentials within approximately the same period of time, or if the plaintiffs were otherwise able to prove competition. View "U.S. WHOLESALE OUTLET & DISTR. V. INNOVATION VENTURES, LLC" on Justia Law

Illumina v. FTC

2023-12-15T16:30:27-08:00

In 2020, Illumina, a for-profit corporation that manufactures and sells next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms, which are crucial tools for DNA sequencing, entered into an agreement to acquire Grail, a company it had initially founded and then spun off as a separate entity in 2016. Grail specializes in developing multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests, which are designed to identify various types of cancer from a single blood sample. Illumina's acquisition of Grail was seen as a significant step toward bringing Grail’s developed MCED test, Galleri, to market. However, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) objected to the acquisition, arguing that it violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which prohibits mergers and acquisitions that may substantially lessen competition. The FTC contended that because all MCED tests, including those still in development, relied on Illumina’s NGS platforms, the merger would potentially give Illumina the ability and incentive to foreclose Grail’s rivals from the MCED test market. Illumina responded by creating a standardized supply contract, known as the "Open Offer," which guaranteed that it would provide its NGS platforms to all for-profit U.S. oncology customers at the same price and with the same access to services and products as Grail. Despite this, the FTC ordered the merger to be unwound. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the FTC had applied an erroneous legal standard in evaluating the impact of the Open Offer. The court ruled that the FTC should have considered the Open Offer at the liability stage of its analysis, rather than as a remedy following a finding of liability. Furthermore, the court determined that to rebut the FTC's prima facie case, Illumina was not required to show that the Open Offer would completely negate the anticompetitive effects of the merger, but rather that it would mitigate these effects to a degree that the merger was no longer likely to substantially lessen competition. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the FTC’s conclusions regarding the likely substantial lessening of competition and the lack of cognizable efficiencies to rebut the anticompetitive effects of the merger. However, given its finding that the FTC had applied an incorrect standard in evaluating the Open Offer, the court vacated the FTC’s order and remanded the case for further consideration of the Open Offer's impact under the proper standard. View "Illumina v. FTC" on Justia Law

US v. Brent Brewbaker

2023-12-01T12:00:16-08:00

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the defendant, Brent Brewbaker, appealed from his conviction of a per se antitrust violation under § 1 of the Sherman Act, as well as five counts of mail and wire fraud. Brewbaker had asked the district court to dismiss the Sherman Act count for failure to state an offense, but the court denied his motion. The court of appeals reversed Brewbaker’s Sherman Act conviction, finding that the indictment failed to state a per se antitrust offense as it purported to do. The court, however, affirmed his fraud convictions and remanded the case for resentencing. The legal basis for the case was Brewbaker's argument that the indictment should have been dismissed because it did not state a per se Sherman Act offense, a claim that the appellate court agreed with. The court explained that the indictment alleged a restraint that was both horizontal and vertical in nature, which does not fit neatly into either category as per existing case law. The court further noted that the Supreme Court had not yet clarified how to analyze an agreement between two parties with both vertical and horizontal aspects. The court concluded that the indictment did not allege a restraint that has been previously held to be per se illegal, nor one that economics showed would invariably lead to anticompetitive effects, and thus failed to state a per se violation of the Sherman Act. The court also rejected Brewbaker's claim that the jury instructions on the Sherman Act count "infected" the jury’s consideration of the fraud counts, noting that the fraud counts were not dependent on finding Brewbaker guilty under the Sherman Act. It further cited the presumption that juries follow instructions, and found no extraordinary situation to overcome this presumption. Therefore, the fraud convictions were affirmed. View "US v. Brent Brewbaker" on Justia Law

Panik v. TMM, Inc.

2023-11-30T12:05:57-08:00

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court concluding that the claims against Appellant did not fall within the categories of claims subject to Nevada's anti-SLAPP statutes without further analysis, holding that remand was required. In the underlying lawsuit, TMM, Inc. (TMMI) filed a third-party complaint against Appellant asserting claims for trade libel, misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion, injunctive relief, abuse of process, and alter ego liability. Appellant filed an anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss, which the district court denied. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding (1) the district court erred in finding that the subject claims did not fall within the categories of claims subject to the anti-SLAPP statute; (2) Appellant met his burden under the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis; and (3) the district court applied an incorrect standard in evaluating TMMI's claims under the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis. View "Panik v. TMM, Inc." on Justia Law

Reliance Health Care, Inc. v. Mitchell

2023-11-16T08:01:07-08:00

The Supreme Court dismissed this interlocutory appeal of a vacated class certification order and directed the circuit court to remand the case to address motions to compel arbitration, holding that this appeal was moot. Plaintiffs, who represented the estates of former residents of fourteen different nursing homes, alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against the nursing homes, in violation of the Arkansas Civil Rights act and the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The nursing homes moved to compel arbitration for all but two of the named plaintiffs, after which the plaintiffs moved for class certification. The circuit court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without ruling on the motions to compel arbitration. The nursing homes brought an interlocutory appeal of the class-certification order and petitioned for writ of prohibition, mandamus, and certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the writ petition, vacating the order granting class certification, and ordered the circuit court to rule on the motions to compel before ruling on class certification, holding that the interlocutory appeal of the vacated class-certification order was moot. View "Reliance Health Care, Inc. v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

CORONAVIRUS REPORTER, ET AL V. APPLE, INC., ET AL

2023-11-03T08:31:01-08:00

Plaintiffs Coronavirus Reporter, CALID, Inc., Primary Productions LLC, and Dr. Jeffrey D. Isaacs sued Defendant Apple for its allegedly monopolist operation of the Apple App Store. The district court dismissed the claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and denied the remaining motions as moot. Plaintiffs-Appellants appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel held that Plaintiffs failed to state an antitrust claim under Section 1 or Section 2 of the Sherman Act, arising from Apple’s rejection of their apps for distribution through the App Store, because they did not sufficiently allege a plausible relevant market, either for their rejected apps as compared to other apps, or for apps in general. The panel held that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of contract under California law because they did not identify relevant specific provisions of Apple’s Developer Agreement or Developer Program License Agreement or show that Apple breached a specific provision. View "CORONAVIRUS REPORTER, ET AL V. APPLE, INC., ET AL" on Justia Law

Najah Edmundson v. Klarna Inc.

2023-11-03T06:30:57-08:00

Defendant Klarna, Inc. ("Klarna") provides a "buy now, pay later" service that allows shoppers to buy a product and pay for it in four equal installments over time without incurring any interest or fees. Plaintiff paid for two online purchases using Klarna. Plaintiff incurred $70 in overdraft fees. Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated consumers, alleging that Klarna misrepresents and conceals the risk of bank-overdraft fees that consumers face when using its pay-over-time service and asserting claims for common-law fraud and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act ("CUTPA"). Klarna moved to compel arbitration. The district court denied Klarna's motion. The Second Circuit reversed he district court's order and remanded with instructions to grant Klarna's motion to compel arbitration. The court explained that when Plaintiff arrived at the Klarna Widget, she knew well that purchasing the GameStop item with Klarna meant that she was entering into a continuing relationship with Klarna, one that would endure at least until she repaid all four installments. The Klarna Widget provided clear notice that there were terms that would govern this continuing relationship. A reasonable internet user, therefore, would understand that finalizing the GameStop transaction, entering into a forward-looking relationship with Klarna, and receiving the benefit of Klarna's service would constitute assent to those terms. The court explained that Plaintiff was on inquiry notice that her "agreement to the payment terms," necessarily encompassed more than the information provided on the Klarna Widget, and the burden was then on her to find out to what terms she was accepting. View "Najah Edmundson v. Klarna Inc." on Justia Law

In Re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation

2023-10-25T10:36:38-08:00

Subscribers who bought health insurance filed a class action against Blue Cross, alleging that it violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by restricting the member plans’ ability to compete. At issue is whether the district court abused its discretion in approving a settlement agreement for a multi-district antitrust class action against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and its member plans. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the self-funded claimants were represented by their own counsel and class representatives in the settlement negotiations and received some compensation from the settlement. Although the settlement agreement’s allocation is facially unequal, it is not facially unfair. Further, the court held that the record supports the conclusion that the self-funded claimants and the fully insured claimants had at least potentially adverse interests. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dividing them into subclasses. Moreover, the court found that the district court also correctly applied the percentage-ofthe-fund doctrine. View "In Re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

BioCorRx, Inc. v. VDM Biochemicals, Inc.

2023-10-23T10:32:30-08:00

BioCorRx, Inc. (BioCorRx) was a publicly traded company primarily engaged in the business of providing addiction treatment services and related medication. It issued several press releases that allegedly made misrepresentations and improperly disclosed confidential information about a treatment it was developing for opioid overdose. VDM Biochemicals, Inc. (VDM) specializes in the synthesis and distribution of chemicals, reagents, and other specialty products for life science research. It owned a patent (the patent) for VDM-001, a compound with potential use as a treatment for opioid overdose. In September 2018, VDM and BioCorRx entered into a Mutual Nondisclosure & Confidentiality Agreement (the NDA), which restricted each party’s disclosure of confidential information as they discussed forming a business relationship. A month later, VDM and BioCorRx signed a Letter of Intent to Enter Definitive Agreement to Acquire Stake in Intellectual Property (the letter of intent). The letter of intent memorialized the parties’ shared desire whereby BioCorRx would partner with VDM to develop and commercialize VDM-001. BioCorRx and VDM never signed a formal contract concerning VDM-001. Their relationship eventually soured. BioCorRx filed a complaint (the complaint) against VDM; VDM cross-complained. In response, BioCorRx filed the anti-SLAPP motion at issue here, seeking to strike all the allegations from the cross-complaint concerning the press releases. The Court of Appeal found these statements fell within the commercial speech exemption of California's Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute) because they were representations about BioCorRx’s business operations that were made to investors to promote its goods and services through the sale of its securities. Since these statements were not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, the Court reversed the part of the trial court’s order granting the anti-SLAPP motion as to the press releases. The Court affirmed the unchallenged portion of the order striking unrelated allegations. View "BioCorRx, Inc. v. VDM Biochemicals, Inc." on Justia Law

Armadillo Hotel v. Harris

2023-10-23T04:00:59-08:00

Plaintiff Armadillo Hotel Group, LLC (“Armadillo”) is a buyer and operator of modular and mobile structures throughout North America. According to Armadillo, Defendants Todd Harris and Jason McDaniel were hired in May 2019 to oversee Armadillo’s construction operations and its hotel, food, and beverage operations, respectively. McDaniel resigned in January 2021, Harris in July 2021. Harris and McDaniel asserted that they entered employment agreements with AHG Management as part of the joint venture, but AHG Management breached these agreements by failing to pay the agreed-upon salary, bonuses, and profit-sharing interests. They asserted claims of fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment. Harris, McDaniel, SDRS, and BMC moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the non-GML defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. The Fifth Circuit reversed. The court explained that it could not find sufficient information in the record to decide if Armadillo and AHG Management were in privity with each other. The fact that the same attorneys filed AHG Management’s amended state counterclaim and Armadillo’s federal complaint is insufficient to show privity. Accordingly, the court found that the district court did not have sufficient information or even assertions about the relationship of Armadillo and AHG Management to perform such an assessment. View "Armadillo Hotel v. Harris" on Justia Law

Van Sant & Co. v. Town of Calhan, et al.

2023-10-13T07:01:10-08:00

Plaintiff Van Sant & Co. (Van Sant) owned and operated a mobile home park in Calhan, Colorado, for a number of years. In 2018, Van Sant began to publicly explore the possibility of converting its mobile home park to an RV park. In October 2018, Calhan adopted an ordinance that imposed regulations on the development of new RV parks, but also included a grandfather clause that effectively exempted the two existing RV parks in Calhan, one of which was connected to the grandparents of two members of Calhan’s Board of Trustees (Board) who voted in favor of the new RV park regulations. Van Sant subsequently filed suit against Calhan, several members of its Board, the owners of one of the existing RV parks, and other related individuals. asserting antitrust claims under the Sherman Act, as well as substantive due process and equal protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants successfully moved for summary judgment. Van Sant appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Van Sant & Co. v. Town of Calhan, et al." on Justia Law

Hanneman Family Funeral Home & Crematorium v. Orians

2023-10-12T05:05:50-08:00

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the trial court to grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this complaint alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with business contacts, tortious interference with business relationships, and conversion, holding that there was no error. Plaintiff, Hanneman Family Funeral Home and Crematorium, purchased a funeral home but did not retain the funeral home's director, Patrick Orians. Orians accepted employment at another funeral home, Chiles-Laman Funeral & Cremation Services, and used Plaintiff's customer information to solicit business for Chiles-Laman. Plaintiff sued Orians and Chiles-Laman (collectively, Defendants). The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the information at issue was not protected by the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act as a trade secret; and (2) Plaintiff's tort claims were preempted by the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act. View "Hanneman Family Funeral Home & Crematorium v. Orians" on Justia Law

Companions & Homemakers, Inc. v. A&B Homecare Solutions

2023-10-11T04:01:19-08:00

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court awarding damages to Companions and Homemakers, Inc. for tortious interference with contractual and business relations and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. 42-110a et seq., holding that A&B Homecare Solutions, LLC was not entitled to relief on its allegations of error. Companions, the largest provide of Medicaid and state-funded home care services in Connecticut, brought this action against A&B. Following a jury trial, the trial court rendered judgment for Companions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in finding that A&B's misrepresentations were tortious; (2) the evidence was sufficient to establish that A&B's allegedly tortious interference cause Companions to suffer damages; and (3) the trial court did not err in finding that A&B's conduct was a violation of CUTPA. View "Companions & Homemakers, Inc. v. A&B Homecare Solutions" on Justia Law

Geomatrix, LLC v. NSF International

2023-09-12T12:01:09-08:00

Septic systems comprise a septic tank that isolates and contains the sewage; the remaining wastewater flows through a drain field, where microorganisms treat it. Customers have two options for private septic systems—aerobic treatment units (contained systems), or soil-based/open-bottom treatment systems (T&D systems). Geomatrix markets and sells a T&D system, while many of its competitors sell contained systems. Since 1970, NSF has offered certification for the wastewater treatment industry, A manufacturer needs to obtain certification before marketing products in at least 37 states. This standard is developed through a voluntary consensus process, overseen by a joint committee staffed by NSF employees, state regulatory officers, industry manufacturers, and consumers. Geomatrix obtained certification. Geomatrix alleges that competitors then began conspiring against T&D systems, questioning whether T&D systems should be entitled to certification and disparaging the efficacy of T&D systems. The alleged conspiracy affected Geomatrix’s business by preventing it from obtaining state regulatory approval, although its certification should have made it possible to do so. Ultimately, Geomatrix withdrew its NSF certification. NSF has not adopted a new standard; discussions remain ongoing. Geomatrix filed suit, alleging violations of the Sherman Act and the Lanham Act. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. The defendants’ petitioning activity was immunized under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Geomatrix failed to show the proximate cause required for its unfair competition claims, and its promissory estoppel claims were based on statements that did not state a sufficiently definite promise. View "Geomatrix, LLC v. NSF International" on Justia Law

Truesdell v. Friedlander

2023-09-01T11:01:31-08:00

Legacy, a small family-owned business, provides nonemergency ambulance services in several Ohio counties that border Kentucky. After receiving many inquiries from Kentucky hospitals and nursing homes, Legacy sought to expand into the Commonwealth. Kentucky required Legacy to apply for a “certificate of need” with the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services. Existing ambulance providers objected to Legacy’s request. The Cabinet denied Legacy’s application partly on the ground that these providers offered an adequate supply. Legacy sued, alleging that Kentucky’s certificate-of-need law violated the “dormant” or “negative” part of the Commerce Clause. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed with respect to Legacy’s request to offer intrastate ambulance transportation in Kentucky. Under the modern approach to the dormant Commerce Clause, a law’s validity largely depends on whether it discriminates against out-of-state businesses in favor of in-state ones. Legacy’s evidence suggests that the state’s limits will harm Kentucky’s own “consumers.” It has not shown a “substantial harm” to interstate commerce. The court reversed with respect to Legacy’s request to offer interstate ambulance transportation between Kentucky and Ohio. States may not deny a common carrier a license to provide interstate transportation on the ground that the interstate market contains an “adequate” supply. The bright-line rule barring states from obstructing interstate “competition” does require a finding that a state has discriminated against out-of-state entities. View "Truesdell v. Friedlander" on Justia Law