Antitrust and Consumer Protection Section

In a May 1, 2020 order, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero denied Uber’s motion to dismiss a monopolization complaint filed by Sidecar, a defunct ride-hailing company that claims it was driven out of business by Uber’s alleged anticompetitive practices in the ride-hailing market. The case is SC Innovations, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 18-cv-07440-JCS, 2020 WL 2097611 (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2020). Read more

In response to the ongoing pandemic, federal, state and local government enforcers, as well as private litigants, have been actively pursuing alleged price gougers.  Our panel will discuss California and federal price gouging statutes, recent enforcement and litigation developments, key concerns for manufacturers, distributors and retailers in this area, and the economic issues at play in price gouging disputes. Read more

Our speakers will discuss the ethical considerations of the CCPA and also discuss ethical principles to help guide regulators, practitioners and their clients through CCPA compliance and enforcement issues. Read more

A presentation with a mental health expert and a fellow attorney with mindfulness experience on prioritizing mental wellness during this global pandemic. Read more

In a conversation moderated by the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, the panel of female leaders of the competition bar will share their paths to leadership, discuss the role of gender in their leadership styles, and provide advice for navigating gender-based obstacles. The evening will conclude with a hosted networking reception featuring delectable bites and beverages. Read more

By enacting statutory provisions governing the distribution and sale of fine wines and spirits, Connecticut created a ferment among vintners operating in the state. The resulting distaste prompted one vintner, Connecticut Fine Wines and Spirits, d/b/a Total Wine & More (“Total Wine”), to file suit against the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection and the Director of the Connecticut Division of Liquor Control (collectively, “Defendants”). Conn. Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC v. Seagull, 932 F.3d 22 (2d Cir. 2019). Read more

On September 3, 2019, Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of California granted in large part the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Micron, Samsung, and Hynix in a putative class action brought by indirect purchasers of Dynamic Random Access Memory (“DRAM”). Jones v. Micron Tech. Inc., 400 F. Supp. 3d 897, 904 (N.D. Cal. 2019). Read more

A petition for review is before the Supreme Court filed by three California real estate investors who were convicted after trial under Section 1 of the Sherman Act for bid rigging at real estate foreclosure auctions. The defendants preserved their objection that the application of the per se rule was unconstitutional because it took an element of the offense [was the agreement in restraint of trade?] away from the jury once the court decided the per se rule applied. Read more

On July 5, 2019, Judge Thomas Hardiman, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Panel”), affirmed the District Court of the Virgin Islands’ verdict dismissing all claims in Spartan Concrete Products, LLC v. Argos USVI, Corp., 929 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2019). The case involved a dispute over the sale of ready-made concrete in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Id. at 109. Read more

The case is about telescopes and the antitrust law. The Court’s earlier opinion denying defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was covered in a previous e-brief (here). In the above-captioned Order the Court ruled on a myriad of summary judgment motions filed by the plaintiff, Optronic Technologies (“Orion”), and the defendants, Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co. Ltd. and Sunny Optics, Inc. (“Sunny”). Read more