Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section

The United States District Court for the District of Utah granted the United States’ Motion to Reconsider and found the per se rule applies to the horizontal customer agreement alleged in the indictment of heir location service providers Kemp & Associates and its Chief Operating Officer, Daniel J. Mannix. The indictment alleges that the conspirators agreed to suppress and eliminate competition between them on estates they both pursued. Read more

Unfair competition law got anatomical in the Northern District of California with Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Cytek Biosciences Inc., No. 18-cv-009933-MMC, 2019 WL 633008 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2019), a case involving two producers of flow cytometry products. Flow cytometry—“powerful, laser-based technology used for identifying and quantifying cellular characteristics on a cell-by-cell basis” (id. at *1 & n.3)—can be used in the diagnosis of blood diseases like leukemia. Read more

On January 28, 2019, Judge William H. Alsup of the Northern District of California dismissed a claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act brought against Google by stock photography website Dreamstime. Dreamstime.com, LLC v. Google, LLC, No. C 18-01910 WHA, 2019 WL 341579, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2019). Dreamstime’s antitrust claim alleged that Google engaged in various predatory and exclusionary acts, directed at harming Dreamstime, in order to maintain Google’s monopoly position in the relevant market of online search advertising. Read more

On November 28, 2018, Judge Marco A. Hernandez of the District of Oregon denied The Common Application, Inc.’s (“the Common App”) motions to dismiss and transfer the antitrust suit against it to the Eastern District of Virginia. CollegeNET, Inc. v. Common Application, Inc. (CollegeNET II), No. 3:14-CV-00771-HZ, 2018 WL 6251366, at *1 (D. Or. Nov. 28, 2018). Judge Hernandez’s decision, on remand from the Ninth Circuit, reversed his previous dismissal of CollegeNET’s complaint for failure to plead facts sufficient to allege antitrust injury. CollegeNET, Inc. v. Common Application, Inc. (CollegeNET I), 104 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1150 (D. Or. 2015), rev’d and remanded, 711 F. App’x 405 (9th Cir. 2017). Read more

Small automotive paint distributor Nicolosi Distributing, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Nicolosi”) sued competitor FinishMaster, Inc., a large automotive paint supplier based in Indiana, and its Canadian parent, Uni-Select, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), for anticompetitive conduct arising from FinishMaster’s alleged used of exclusive dealing contracts and acquisition of smaller distributors. Read more

The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”), California’s new privacy law which takes effect on January 1, 2020, requires the Attorney General to adopt implementing regulations that further the objectives of the CCPA. The California Lawyers Association has scheduled a number of events and webinars focused on this new law, including a webinar hosted by the Privacy Subcommittee on March 26. Read more

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is a groundbreaking legislation which will go into effect in January 2020. It provides new privacy rights to California consumers and is slated to be the backdrop for a new U.S. federal privacy legislation which is currently being debated in the US Congress. Read more

Program Description: Trail blazers from the antitrust and competition bar will offer practical tips for building a litigation team dominated by women. The panelists will answer questions posed by the Honorable Laurel Beeler about how a female-dominated litigation team — associates, partners, experts, and consultants — is not only possible, but highly valuable to your clients. Read more

Program Description: Trail blazers from the antitrust and competition bar will offer practical tips for building a litigation team dominated by women. The panelists will answer questions posed by the Honorable Laurel Beeler about how a female-dominated litigation team — associates, partners, experts, and consultants — is not only possible, but highly valuable to your clients. Read more

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ohio v. American Express, in which the Court held that AmEx’s anti-steering provisions do not violate the antitrust laws, was closely watched and elicited strong reactions on both sides. While some celebrated the decision’s recognition of two-sided “transaction platforms” as a relevant market with distinct characteristics and concerns, others criticized it as an unwarranted departure from traditional rule of reason analysis. This panel discussion will explore the treatment of two-sided markets in antitrust law, with an emphasis on how the AmEx decision has been interpreted by courts and invoked by litigants thus far and how it is likely to shape legal theories and analysis in antitrust cases going forward. Read more