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
- 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.
- 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
- United States V. Bazaarvoice: the Role of Customer Testimony In Clayton Act Merger Challenges
- The United States V. Bazaarvoice Merger Trial: a Panel Discussion Including Insights From Trial Counsel
THE UNITED STATES V. BAZAARVOICE MERGER TRIAL: A PANEL DISCUSSION INCLUDING INSIGHTS FROM TRIAL COUNSEL
Moderated by Karen Silverman1
I. INTRODUCTION
In the summer of 2012 Bazaarvoice, the leading provider of product ratings and review software and services, finalized the acquisition of its primary rival, PowerReviews. Two days later, the United States opened an investigation that led to a lawsuit in the Northern District of California to unwind the deal. In the fall of 2013, the parties squared off in court for a three week trial before Judge William H. Orrick, III. In January of 2014, Judge Orrick handed a victory to the government, issuing a 141 page opinion finding that the acquisition violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act.2
The case was watched by the antitrust bar and others for several reasons. First, merger challenges are only rarely litigated all the way through a trial on the merits. Also, the case marked the first time the Antitrust Division had returned to the Northern District for a merger matter since its ill-fated challenge to Oracle’s acquisition of PeopleSoft in 2004 in front of Judge Vaughn Walker.3 The somewhat unique posture of the case also generated interest. Because a Hart-Scott-Rodino filing was not required, the government was seeking to unravel an already consummated transaction, rather than trying to enjoin a merger from happening in the first place. And the case was of interest because it involved two relatively small technology companies, raising issues of the correct standard for judging a merger in a dynamic part of the economy.