Antitrust

Notwithstanding  United States v. Paramount Pictures (1948) 334 U.S. 131, which applied a per se test to circuit-dealing contracts in movie theaters, this decision holds that the rule of reason test applies to a non-monopoly claim of circuit-dealing contracts under the Cartwright Act.  Paramount Pictures dealt with a unique market structure which has since vanished from the motion picture industry. … Read More

Reversing the district court's judgment and permanent injunction, this decision finds that Qualcomm's patent licensing practices do not violate the Sherman Act.  The district court erred in finding anticompetitive harm from the effect Qualcomm's licensing practices had on cell phone manufacturersp--a market in which Qualcomm did not compete--rather than on rival chip manufacturers with which Qualcomm did compete.  Qualcomm's practice… Read More

B&P Code 16600 bans any agreement that restrains anyone from engaging in a lawful business or trade.  While the Court has interpreted the section as strictly forbidding any restraint in the employment context, a different rule--the rule of reason--applies to contracts restraining trade outside the employment context. Read More

To properly plead demand futility in a shareholder’s derivative suit, the complaint must allege facts specific to each director, showing that at least half of them could not have exercised disinterested business judgment in responding to a demand; alleging that corporate officers, but not directors, were engaged in an antitrust conspiracy did not suffice. Read More

The act of state doctrine defeated this attempted antitrust suit against a salt production company that was 51% owned by the Mexican government.  Read More

Department of Justice required SABMiller to divest entirely of its domestic beer business as a condition of approving its merger with Anheuser-Busch; so consumers could not maintain suit alleging that the merger would lessen competition in the domestic market. Read More

Although corporations are immune from antitrust liability for conspiracy when their alleged co-conspirator has substantially common ownership, this immunity does not apply when wholly unrelated corporations are alleged to be part of the conspiracy. Read More

The district court properly dismissed this antitrust action because plaintiffs failed to allege facts to support the conclusion that the advertising on bibs worn by golf caddies on professional golf tours constituted a separate market or submarket.  Read More

Bid-rigging at foreclosure sales is an antitrust violation. Read More

American Express’s anti-steering policy, which forbids merchants from suggesting to customers, at the point of sale, that they use a non-Amex credit card that charges lower merchant fees, does not violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Read More

The Sherman Antitrust Act pre-empts a Seattle ordinance that would have allowed unions to organize independent contractors serving as drivers for ride-sharing services since the ordinance contemplates horizontal price-fixing by non-employee drivers. Read More

Baseball’s antitrust exemption barred an antitrust suit by minor league players claiming teams illegally colluded in setting their salaries.  Read More

An order denying a motion to dismiss an antitrust action based on state action immunity is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.  Read More

Genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether three foreign airline defendants could invoke the filed rate doctrine as a defense to an antitrust lawsuit, since it was not clear whether the federal Department of Transportation actually regulated rates for foreign carriers or merely paid lip service to that policy.  Read More

Plaintiffs who purchased applications from Apple's App Store are direct purchasers from Apple and can sue it for monopolizing the market for distribution of applications that run on the iPhone.  Read More

Summary judgment is affirmed in favor of defendant in antitrust suit by competitor who claimed without sufficient supporting evidence that defendant had illegal exclusive dealing contracts and that its contracts were of such long duration as to unduly restrict the market.  Read More

In an antitrust suit claiming car manufacturers conspired to keep their lower priced but otherwise identical cars sold in Canada from being exported to the United States where they could be sold for less than the same models sold for the United States market, summary judgment was properly granted to Ford US  because there was no evidence it had done… Read More