You should also be aware that the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) historically have been active in the health care industry, with many prosecutions of physicians and dentists for antitrust...more
Introduction - No-poach agreements, wherein companies agree not to solicit or hire employees away from a competitor, have been targeted by the White House, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division....more
In Deslandes v. McDonald’s USA LLC, issued August 25, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned the dismissal of antitrust claims that challenged no-poach clauses in franchise agreements....more
On July 9, 2021, just days into her tenure as Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) Chair, Lina Khan led the Commission’s charge to rescind the agency’s 2015 policy statement (2015 Statement) on its approach to...more
Almost one year has passed since the Supreme Court’s unanimous antitrust decision in NCAA v. Alston. That well-publicized decision affirmed the District Court’s rejection of the NCAA’s limits on education-related compensation...more
Joint venture analysis remains an area of confusion in antitrust law. Courts have tended to elevate form over substance, misapply economic principles, and lose focus of the basic purposes of the antitrust laws, i.e.,...more
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, No. 20-297: Whether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class...more
The most powerful tool capable of invalidating competitive restraints under California law is Business and Professions Code section 16600. That statute states that “[e]very contract by which anyone is restrained from...more
In its first resale price maintenance ("RPM") ruling since the passage of its Anti-Monopoly Law, China's highest court held that Chinese antitrust enforcement agencies do not have to prove that RPM has an anticompetitive...more
In the last week of June 2019 a copy of a groundbreaking court ruling emerged on social media in China – the order by the Supreme People's Court (SPC) in the Yutai case. ...more
In a ruling issued on December 18, 2018 but not published until June 24, 2019, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) ruled in favor of the Hainan Provincial Price Bureau in an administrative proceeding regarding a vertical...more
In The Medical Center at Elizabeth Place, LLC v. Atrium Health System, Case No. 17-3863 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 2019), the Sixth Circuit held that activity in connection with a joint venture that is plausibly procompetitive is not...more
On November 15, 2018, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice settled a two-and-a-half year long lawsuit against Atrium Health, a North Carolina hospital system formerly known as the Carolinas HealthCare...more
The Background: Over the first decade of China's Antimonopoly Law ("AML"), there has been a divergence between the approaches adopted by the Chinese antimonopoly enforcement agencies ("AMEAs") and the Chinese courts toward...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided its first antitrust case in almost three years, establishing a new rule that in the two-sided credit card network market, a plaintiff must analyze both the merchant services side and the...more
A divided U.S. Supreme Court sided with American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company (Amex) over Ohio, sixteen other states and the United States based on the Court’s application of the theory...more
In a 5-4 decision in Ohio v. American Express, the Supreme Court affirmed that the anti-steering provisions of American Express’s merchant agreement do not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act....more
In Ohio v. American Express Co., the United States Supreme Court held that American Express Co. (Amex) did not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by including “antisteering” provisions in its agreements with...more
The Supreme Court steered its way through high-profile antitrust litigation by the Department of Justice challenging payment industry restrictions. Our Antitrust and Financial Services & Products teams consider the wider...more
On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision by Justice Thomas, held that provisions in American Express Company’s (“American Express”) and its operating subsidiary’s contracts with merchants that restricted...more
On 25 June the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ohio v. American Express that American Express (Amex) did not violate the federal antitrust laws by directing merchants not to "steer" cardholders to alternative credit cards as a...more
On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that American Express’s contractual “antisteering provisions” did not violate section 1 of the Sherman Act....more
In one of the year's most anticipated antitrust decisions, Ohio et al. v American Express Co., the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that courts considering allegations of anticompetitive behavior by companies that operate...more
On June 25, 2018, in Ohio v. American Express Co., the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and held that American Express’ “anti-steering rules”...more
Milwaukee-based Harley-Davidson announced on Monday that it will shift some of its motorcycle production overseas “to avoid retaliatory tariffs imposed by the European Union” in response to the White House’s trade moves....more