Antitrust and Consumer Protection
Competition: Spring 2015, Vol. 24, No. 1
Content
- California Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law and Federal and State Procedural Law Developments
- Chair's Column
- Editor's Note
- How Viable Is the Prospect of Enforcement of Privacy Rights In the Age of Big Data? An Overview of Trends and Developments In Consumer Privacy Class Actions
- Keynote Address: a Conversation With the Honorable Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Justice of the California Supreme Court
- Masthead
- Nowhere To Run, Nowhere To Hide: In the Age of Big Data Is Data Security Possible and Can the Enforcement Agencies and Private Litigation Ensure Your Online Information Remains Safe and Private? a Roundtable
- Restoring Balance In the Test For Exclusionary Conduct
- St. Alphonsus Medical Center-nampa and Ftc V St. Luke's Health System Ltd.: a Panel Discussion On This Big Stakes Trial
- St. Alphonsus Medical Center - Nampa, Inc., Et Al. and Federal Trade Commission, Et Al. V St. Luke's Health System, Ltd., and Saltzer Medical Group, P.a.: a Physicians' Practice Group Merger's Journey Through Salutary Health-related Goals, Irreparable Harm, Self-inflicted Wounds, and the Remedy of Divestiture
- The Baseball Exemption: An Anomaly Whose Time Has Run
- The Continuing Violations Doctrine: Limitation In Name Only, or a Resuscitation of the Clayton Act's Statute of Limitations?
- The Doctor Is In, But Your Medical Information Is Out Trends In California Privacy Cases Relating To Release of Medical Information
- The State of Data-breach Litigation and Enforcement: Before the 2013 Mega Breaches and Beyond
- The United States V. Bazaarvoice Merger Trial: a Panel Discussion Including Insights From Trial Counsel
- United States V. Bazaarvoice: the Role of Customer Testimony In Clayton Act Merger Challenges
- Major League Baseball Is Exempt From the Antitrust Laws - Like It or Not: the "Unrealistic," "Inconsistent," and "Illogical" Antitrust Exemption For Baseball That Just Won't Go Away.
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL IS EXEMPT FROM THE ANTITRUST LAWS – LIKE IT OR NOT: THE "UNREALISTIC," "INCONSISTENT," AND "ILLOGICAL" ANTITRUST EXEMPTION FOR BASEBALL THAT JUST WON’T GO AWAY.
By John L. Cooper and Racheal Turner1
The Athletics baseball team has been located in Oakland, California for many years. Several years ago, the A’s decided they would like to move their franchise to San Jose, which they anticipate would be a more profitable location. San Jose responded that it would also like to have the A’s relocate to their city. In 2009, the A’s asked Major League Baseball (MLB) for permission to move its franchise from Oakland to San Jose, but the league essentially shelved the request by sending it to a committee. San Jose then sued MLB, claiming that the refusal of its relocation request was an agreement among MLB team owners to preserve the San Francisco Giants’ monopoly in violation of the federal and state antitrust laws.
On October 11, 2013, Judge Ronald Whyte of the Northern District of California ruled that under longstanding United States Supreme Court precedent, "MLB’s alleged interference with the A’s relocation to San Jose is exempt from antitrust regulation."2 San Jose appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the Court should overrule MLB’s historic exemption from the antitrust laws, which the Supreme Court itself has acknowledged may be described as "unrealistic, inconsistent, [and] illogical."3 On January 15, 2015 Judge Alex Kozinski issued the opinion of the Court affirming the District Court’s decision and refusing to limit or overturn baseball’s antitrust exemption.4
Baseball is the only national sport that is exempt from the antitrust laws. That anomalous exemption has existed for 92 years and withstood numerous court and Congressional challenges. So how did the judicially-created baseball antitrust exemptionâwhich is widely acknowledged to be bad lawâbecome the law-of-the-land? This exemption is a study in how judicial and legislative events transpire to freeze into the law a rule that is not only "illogical" but if considered afresh on a clean slate would never exist. As will be discussed in more detail below, the exemption was created in 1922 when the Supreme Court first held that baseball was not subject to the federal antitrust laws because it was not involved in interstate commerce. Over the years, the federal courts and the public adopted the view, without supporting legal analysis, that baseball was generally exempt from the antitrust laws, regardless of whether it was engaged in interstate commerce. Since 1953, the Supreme Court has considered this issue several