Antitrust in the News

On December 7, 2018, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order granting summary judgment for two oligopolist-manufacturers accused of price-fixing in violation of the Sherman Act. The court observed at the outset that oligopolies pose particular “problems” for antitrust law, because firms in oligopolistic markets lack sufficient power to face Sherman Act § 2 scrutiny, and they can tacitly collude to raise prices – that is, without an actual agreement – enabling them to earn supracompetitive profits. Read more

Harrison (Buzz) Frahn, Michael R. Morey, Wyatt A. Honse Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP On March 28, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California partially granted and denied cross-motions for summary judgment in In re: NCAA Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:14-md-02541-CW, 2018 WL 1524005 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2018) (the “Grant-in-Aid Litigation”).The Grant-in-Aid Litigation is a multidistrict class action antitrust suit brought by current and former Division I student-athletes against the NCAA and eleven of its member conferences for… Read more

On August 23, 2018, the California Court of Appeal, First District, affirmed the Superior Court of San Francisco City and County’s holding that the State Bar of California was not required to disclose individual-level data for applicants to the State Bar in response to several California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) requests seeking such data. Sander v. Superior Court, 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 276 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (hereafter, the “Appellate Opinion”). Read more

On November 6, 2018, Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California granted the FTC’s motion for partial summary judgment in its ongoing litigation against Qualcomm. Read more

In the capacitor private class action litigation, U.S. District Judge James Donato agreed to certify a class of plaintiffs led by four distribution companies that purchased capacitors from mostly Asia-based electronics companies. Read more

Iowa Public Employees’ Ret. System v. Merrill Lynch, et al., Case No. 17-cv-6221, 2018 WL 4636993 *1-*3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2018) (“Iowa Public Employees’”) is a class action brought by plaintiff investors who paid borrowing fees in connection with securities lending services financial firms who are the leading providers of securities lending services (the “Prime Broker Defendants”) as part of stock loan transactions. Read more

On November 13, 2018, the district court in Yi v. SK Bakeries LLC et al., No. 3:18-cv-05627 (W.D. Wash.) denied Defendants Cinnabon Franchisor SPV LLC (“Cinnabon”) and SK Bakeries, LLC (“SK”)’s motions to dismiss a complaint alleging Defendants violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, et. seq., and Washington’s Unfair Business Practices Act, RCW 19.86, et seq., by entering into a franchise agreement that included a no-hire and non-solicitation provision until July 12, 2018. Read more

Jan. 1, 2020, marks the effective date of the recently enacted California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), a new law that requires companies to comply with numerous requirements related to collecting and processing personal information of California consumers, employees, and other individuals. Read more

Harrison (Buzz) FrahnMarissa LambertKourtney Kinsel In October 2016, two of brewing’s biggest names headlined a $107 billion merger, attracting the attention of the DOJ and zythophiles, aka beer lovers, alike. By the time the merger cleared DOJ review, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (“ABI”) had combined with SABMiller, plc (“SAB”), divesting SAB’s U.S.-based interest in the process. See DeHoog v. Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, 899 F.3d 758, 761–62 (9th Cir. 2018). A “bevy of beer aficionados” challenged the acquisition under Section 7 of the… Read more

Ian L. PapendickJeanifer E. ParsigianAmanda JereigeWinston & Strawn LLP In NorthBay Healthcare Group v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., the Northern District of California recently dismissed without leave to amend the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims based on monopolization and conspiracy-to-monopolize theories under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. No. 17-cv-05005-LB, 2018 WL 4096399 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2018). The dismissal was with prejudice because the Court had dismissed with leave to amend twice before, and thus any further amendment would… Read more