On June 30, 2008, the First Circuit held that leasees of motor vehicles could not recover under Section 4 of the Clayton Act because they were indirect purchasers of the vehicles. In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litig., No. 07-1990, 2008 WL 2568457 (1st Cir. June 30, 2008). In Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), the Supreme Court held that only plaintiffs that purchased a product directly from a co-conspirator can recover treble damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act for a violation of the antitrust laws. In an action brought by leasees of motor vehicles who claimed that the motor vehicle manufacturers had conspired to prevent the sale of motor vehicles in Canada to U.S. consumers for export into the U.S., the First Circuit held that the dealers and not the leasing companies or leasees were the direct purchasers under Illinois Brick. The Court held that because the dealers negotiate the terms of the sale in response to rates set by the leasing companies, the dealers were the direct victims of an antitrust violation by the manufacturers. An interesting question is whether consumers in this case have remedies under state antitrust laws if their claims are based on purchases in Canada. Followers of this litigation are directed to the April 14, 2008 Post discussing the First Circuit’s treatment of class certification.

On July 1, 2008, the Antitrust Division announced that VISA agreed to rescind a rule that required merchants to give VISA debit cards superior treatment than non-VISA debit transactions from VISA branded cards. Under the rule, VISA allowed merchants to waive the signature and PIN requirements for transactions of less than $25 on VISA debit cards but required the entry of a PIN or a signature on a VISA branded card for a non-VISA debit transaction. With a 70% share of the debit card market, this hurdle may have given VISA an unfair competitive advantage. This practice had become the subject of investigations by the Antitrust Division and the District of Columbia, New York and Ohio attorneys general. It is not surprising that VISA is gun-shy in light of its multi-billion settlements in private antitrust litigation. The Antitrust Division’s press release is attached. DOJ Press Release (VISA)

According to Reuters, the Antitrust Division has opened an investigation into the proposed revenue sharing agreement between Yahoo and Google. Under the agreement, Yahoo will allow Google to put advertisements on its site in exchange for a share of the revenue. Google and Yahoo are reported to have shares of about 80% and 16% respectively of online advertising revenue. The obvious concern is whether the agreement will reduce the incentives for Google and Yahoo to compete and therefore, violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Yahoo may have an incentive to raise its prices knowing that under the agreement, it will share in any lost business to Google. The Antitrust Division reportedly has issued civil investigative demands not just to Google and Yahoo but to many other players in the industry. Although not required to do so, Google and Yahoo agreed not to go forward with their collaboration until the Antitrust Division has an opportunity to review the potential effects on competition. The parties have attempted to shrug-off the investigation as expected. But it certainly is not routine. The Antitrust Division does not take issuance of CIDs lightly.

According to Reuters, Hewlett Packard Co. received approval today of its $12.6 billion proposed acquisition of Electronic Data Services. Consummation of the transaction would make HP the second largest provider of technology services behind International Business Machines. The transaction is still subject to approval by the EU Competition Commission.

On June 26, 2008, the Antitrust Division announced that Air France (and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines), Cathay Pacific, Martinair Holland and SAS Cargo Group entered into plea agreements for their participation in the cartel to fix air cargo rates. They agreed to fines of more than $504 million. Air France-KLM agreed to pay $350 million — the second largest fine for an antitrust conviction in U.S. history. Cathay agreed to a $60 million fine; Martinair agreed to a $42 million fine; and SAS agreed to a $52 million fine. So far, the Antitrust Division has obtained $1.27 billion in fines from guilty pleas by cartel participants. This is the largest amount of fines ever imposed as a result of a criminal antitrust investigation. The Antitrust Division’s press release is attached. DOJ Press Release (Interantional Cargo Cartel)

On June 23, 2008, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Linkline Communications, No. 07-512, 2008 WL 2484729 (U.S. June 23, 2008). In a highly unusual public disagreement, the Antitrust Division had filed an amicus curiae supporting certiorari while the FTC had issued a statement opposing certiorari. More on this disagreement is set forth in the June 3, 2008 post.

On June 9, 2008, the Sixth Circuit rejected a coach’s challenge to the NCAA’s disciplinary rules because he did not allege that the disciplinary rules implicated commercial activity or that he suffered antitrust injury. Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, No. 06-5795, 2008 WL 2329755 (6th Cir. June 9, 2008). The Sixth Circuit held that to state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, “there must be a commercial activity implicated.” Id. at *5. The court further held that “the appropriate inquiry is whether the rule itself is commercial, not whether the entity promulgating the rule is commercial.” Id. (citations omitted). The court then rejected the challenge because the enforcement of disciplinary rules is not a commercial activity. The court also held that plaintiff did not allege antitrust injury. To satisfy this element, the plaintiff had to allege an “anticompetitive effect on the coaching market.” Id. at *7. The coach’s exclusion based on enforcement of the disciplinary rules was insufficient to establish an antitrust injury. It should be noted that the decision contains good dicta explaining when the rule of reason as opposed the per se analysis applies and the nature of the rule of reason analysis.

On May 28, 2008, the Antitrust Division required divestitures as a condition of its approval of Cengage Holdings’ $750 million proposed acquisition of Houghton Mifflin College Division. Both companies publish college textbooks. The Antitrust Division defined the relevant product market as textbooks in courses on particular subject matters. The Antitrust Division alleged that students had no significant alternatives to new textbooks in these courses because, for example, used textbooks are not consistently available in large numbers. The Antitrust Division limited the relevant geographic market to the United States but did not explain why foreign publishers could not compete effectively. The Antitrust Division calculated that in 14 overlapping courses, the minimum post-merger HHI would be 3,000 with a delta of 500. The Antitrust Division concluded that high barriers to entry exist because instructors infrequently switched textbooks and therefore it would be unlikely that a publisher would invest in the authors and editorial staff necessary to write a new textbook. The Antitrust Division’s Press Release and Competitive Impact Statement are attached. DOJ Press Release (Cengage/Houghton Mifflin); Competitive Impact Statement (Cengage/Houghton Mifflin).

On June 2, 2008, the Antitrust Division’s Criminal Section lost a four-day jury trial in the District of Columbia. In United States v. Keitt, 07-CR-041, the defendant was accused of paying a former associate director of the TSA in exchange for favorable treatment in overseeing and administering his company’s contract. The jury acquitted in less than one day. This is the fifth major blow to the Criminal Section within the last year. The March 15, 2008 post discusses the Criminal Section’s four other defeats within the last twelve months — three acquittals after trial and the denial of extradition by the U.K. House of Lords.

On June 6, 2008, Inova Health System announced that it is has abandoned its merger plans with Prince William Health Systems. The FTC had commenced an action in the United States District for the Eastern District of Virginia on May 12, 2008, in which it sought a preliminary injunction to block the merger during the pendency of its adminstrative proceeding. After the motion for a preliminary injunction had been submitted, the hospitals’ abandoned their merger plans. Abandoning merger plans after litigating through a preliminary injunction hearing is rare. The parties must have incurred millions of dollars in legal fees and a decision on the injunction was due in only a month. If the hospitals had prevailed in district court and merged, it is possible that the FTC would have dropped its administrative challenge. The administrative proceedings in this case also were unusual because the FTC appointed one of its Commissioners (Thomas Rosch) to act as the administrative judge.