Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section

The Sixth Annual “Celebrating Women in Competition Law in California” is back in San Francisco on March 9, 2023. Reserve your spot today! Read more

Come hear from our panel of experts as they discuss antitrust regulators’ challenge to Microsoft Corp.’s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc. Read more

WELCOME to the FEBRUARY 2023 edition of E-Briefs, News and Notes. Read more

Mr. Dahdouh has over 31 years of experience at the FTC and continues as an Advisor to the Section to this day. Mr. Dahdouh discussed the FTC’s November 2022 updated “Policy Statement Regarding the Scope of Unfair Methods of Competition under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.” Read more

WELCOME to the JANUARY 2023 edition of E-Briefs, News and Notes. Read more

The Antitrust & Unfair Competition Law Section’s brand new UCL Institute will feature leading UCL practitioners from across the private and public sector. Read more

In the Turkey Antitrust Litigation, Plaintiffs alleged that Agri Stats which provided non-public pricing and supply information to the turkey industry, together with turkey suppliers controlling eighty percent of the U.S. turkey market, conspired to exchange competitive information.  The conspiracy was challenged on both a rule of reason and per se basis.  The court dismissed the per se challenge, finding it conclusory and not plausible, while allowing the conspiracy claim to proceed under a rule of reason standard. After discovery, plaintiffs filed an amended 600-page complaint, with one claim attacking the information-exchange conspiracy on a rule of reason basis, and a second claim alleging a per se price fixing conspiracy.  Defendants moved to dismiss the amended per se claim, which Judge Kendall in Chicago rejected after finding that the pleadings alleged sufficient circumstantial evidence of the price fixing conspiracy, with parallel conduct and additional “plus factors” indicative of an agreement. In re Turkey Antitrust Litigation, No. 19 C8318, 2022 WL 17093359, *6-7, 11 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2022). Read more

In In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., No. 21-md-02981-JD, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213670 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2022), U.S.D.J. James Donato certified Consumer Plaintiffs’ class certification motion under Rule 23(b)(3), but denied the motion pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2).[1]  Court also denied Google’s motion to exclude Plaintiffs’ economics expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702 after adopting the “hot tub” approach (putting the opposing experts head to head to parse out the critical differences in their analyses).  Facts: Plaintiffs allege that Google illegally monopolizes the Android app distribution market with anticompetitive practices in the Google Play Store.  Alleged anticompetitive acts include requiring manufacturers and mobile network operators to preinstall and prominently place the Play Store on Android devices and prohibiting developers who sell their apps through the Play Store from providing any apps that would allow consumers to download a competing app distribution store. Read more

In United States v. Bertelsmann SE, No. CV 21-2886-FYP, 2022 WL 16949715 (D.D.C. Nov. 15, 2022), the District Court of the District of Columbia blocked Penguin Random House’s $2.18 billion purchase of rival publisher Simon & Schuster.  The opinion endorses the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) monopsony theory of the case, and completely rejects the defendants’ counterarguments.  After a string of defeats, the case marks the first trial win for the DOJ under the Biden administration in a litigated merger challenge. Read more

WELCOME to the DECEMBER 2022 edition of E-Briefs, News and Notes. Read more