The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment dismissing a Complaint brought by an owner of a windshield repair shop alleging State Farm’s policy that advises its insureds to replace (rather than repair) windshields with cracks longer than six inches violates Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. Campfield v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Nos. 06-1442, 06-1467, 06-1469, 2008 WL 2736656 (10th Cir. July 15, 2008). The Court rejected plaintiff’s Section 1 and 2 claims because he could not establish a relevant product market — a necessary element of both claims. The Court noted that plaintiff alleged State Farm’s misuse of its monopsony power over its insured and therefore the relevant market “is not the market of competing sellers but of competing buyers. This market is comprised of buyers who are seen by sellers as being reasonably good substitutes.” Id. at *4 (citation omitted). Plaintiff alleged a “State Farm insured repairable windshield market, in the geographic area of the United States of America.” Id. The Tenth Circuit rejected this market definition as underinclusive because plaintiff offered no basis why sellers would not view other buyers of repairable windshields as reasonable substitutes. The Tenth Circuit made clear that the rule of reason applied to the Section 1 claim notwithstanding plaintiff’s characterization of State Farm’s conduct as a group boycott. The restraint was vertical in nature and not the classic horizontal group boycott that triggers per se condemnation. The Tenth Circuit rejected the Consumer Protection Act claim because the recommendations to insureds to replace rather than repair windshields were not knowing and intentional concealment or misrepresentations as required under the Act. This opinion is useful for its discussion of limitations on pleading relevant markets as well as the relevant market inquiry in monopsony cases.
Jul
18
Posted by : | On : July 18, 2008
Jul
11
Posted by : | On : July 11, 2008
Resale price maintenance liability remains alive even after Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, 127 S.Ct. 2705 (2007) (holding that rpm agreements are now subject to the rule of reason). On June 17, 2008, the Third Circuit held that a Mack truck franchisee raised a triable issue of fact under the rule of reason concerning an alleged resale price maintenance scheme. Toledo Mack Sales & Serv. v. Mack Trucks, No. 07-1811, 2008 WL 2420729 (3d Cir. June 17, 2008). In particular, the Court held that the plaintiff came forward with sufficient evidence to show that the existence of an agreement between the manufacturer and dealers to stop discounting and the agreement may have caused prices to increase violating the rule of reason. Relying on Monsanto v. Spray-Rite Serv., 465 U.S. 752 (1984), the dealers’ frequent input and complaints about discounting were sufficient to raise a triable question over the existence of an agreement. With respect to the showing under the rule of reason, the dealer established that the manufacturer had sufficient power in the engine placed in front of the cab and the low cab over engine truck markets to control prices in those markets. Accordingly, its efforts to reduce intrabrand competition could have affected interbrand competition and caused prices to increase in the relevant markets. The Third Circuit rejected the R-P- Act claim holding that the statute does not apply to custom made goods of the type that were at issue in this case. The Third Circuit also rejected the statute of limitations defense holding that the plaintiff could rely on evidence of overt acts that took place before the limitations period to prove the existence of the conspiracy during the limitations period. Counsel must be careful in advising their clients about resale price maintenance. In addition to liability that can arise as demonstrated by this decision, state attorneys general remain active in this area. See March 14 and May 23, 2008 Posts.
Jul
08
Posted by : | On : July 8, 2008
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.
Jul
07
Posted by : | On : July 7, 2008
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)
Jul
02
Posted by : | On : July 2, 2008
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.
Jun
30
Posted by : | On : June 30, 2008
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.
Jun
26
Posted by : | On : June 26, 2008
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 (International Cargo Cartel)