On May 23, 2008, the FTC issued a statement explaining its reasons for its decision not to join the DOJ’s brief that seeks Supreme Court review of LinkLine Comm’n v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co., 503 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2007). The FTC “disagree[d] with DOJ’s analysis, and … [believed that] this case does not appear to be worthy of review at this time.” FTC Statement at 1. The FTC recognized that “[t]he Ninth Circuit is unquestionably correct: … claims of a predatory price squeeze in a partially regulated industry remain viable.” Id., at 3. The FTC also believed that because the Ninth Circuit’s decision resolved a motion to dismiss, it was premature for Supreme Court review. The lower court had yet to decide the appropriate measure of cost for the input. Therefore, the Supreme Court could not opine on this issue and any decision would be of limited value. The FTC Statement is attached. FTC Statement (linkLine)
Jun
03
Posted by : | On : June 3, 2008
May
30
Posted by : | On : May 30, 2008
On May 27, 2008, the Ninth Circuit in Gerlinger v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 05-178328, 2008 WL 2169401 (9th Cir. May 27, 2008), affirmed dismissal of a customer’s challenge to the arrangement between Amazon and Borders whereby Amazon took over operation of Borders’ internet bookstore. Amazon submitted affidavits showing that the prices paid by plaintiff were the same or lower since the arrangement with Borders. The Ninth Circuit held that Plaintiff did not suffer any injury and therefore lacked Article 3 standing to pursue his antitrust claim. This case marks the second time in about one month that an appellate court has addressed the Article 3 standing of an antitrust plaintiff. The May 16, 2008 post discusses Ross v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 06-4755, 2008 WL 1836640 (2d Cir. Apr. 25, 2008), where the Second Circuit found that the antitrust plaintiffs had Article 3 standing. Although the Ross plaintiffs had not instituted arbitration proceedings or otherwise had a dispute with their credit card issuers, plaintiffs nevertheless had challenged the arbitration provisions in credit card agreements claiming that these provisions were inserted in the agreements as a result of a conspiracy among certain credit card issuers. According to the Second Circuit, the existence of the offending provisions alone were sufficient to confer standing.
May
23
Posted by : | On : May 23, 2008
The state attorneys general continue to be hostile to the Supreme Court’s decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 2705 (2007), which overruled Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Parke & Sons. Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911), and made resale price maintenance subject to the rule of reason under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. 35 state attorneys general have written to Congress asking that it pass S. 2261 which would make resale price maintenance a per se violation of Section 1. State Attorney General Letter; S. 2261. The March 31, 2008 post reported that the New York, Michigan and Illinois attorneys general obtained a consent decree under state law against Herman Miller for its resale price maintenance scheme. The May 8,2008 post reported that although the FTC modified Nine West’s consent decree that had prohibited resale price maintenance, the FTC reminded Nine West that it was still subject to state restrictions. This most recent letter further confirms that counselors must be cognizant of state law when they advise clients about the legality of resale price maintenance. It would be prudent for clients to act unilaterally and follow the Colgate doctrine rather than rely on Leegin.
May
20
Posted by : | On : May 20, 2008
On May 2, 2008, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted class certification in In re Wellbutrin SR Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. 04-5525, 2008 WL 1946858 (E.D. Penn. May 2, 2008). Plaintiffs claim that GlaxoSmithKline unlawfully extended its monopoly over Wellbutrin SR through fraud on the patent office and sham litigation against potential generic entrants. Defendant argued that a conflict exists among class members because national wholesalers benefit from the lack of generic competition — generic manufacturers often bypass wholesalers. The court rejected this argument because as generic Wellbutrin SR has been available since 2004, no theoretical conflict could still exist. Plaintiffs met the other requirements for class certification. Notably, plaintiffs offered a “colorable method” to prove common impact. Plaintiffs’ expert plans to examine the impact of generic entry on brand name pharmaceuticals through an analysis of public data collected on the dispensation and purchases of prescription drugs. In this case, class certification was straightforward. It can become more difficult when, for example, prices are negotiated on an individual basis. See, e.g., Blades v. Monsanto Co., 400 F.3d 562, 569 (8th Cir. 2005) (denying class certification because, inter alia, “the market for seeds is highly individualized, requiring particularized evidence to determine the competitive price that would have prevailed”).
May
16
Second Circuit Finds Article 3 Standing in Antitrust Challenge to Credit Card Arbitration Provisions
Posted by : | On : May 16, 2008
In Ross v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 06-4755, 2008 WL 1836640 (2d Cir. Apr. 25, 2008), plaintiffs had alleged that the standard arbitration clauses in their credit card agreements with several issuers was the product of a conspiracy in violation of the Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The district court held that plaintiffs had no Article 3 standing because they had not yet initiated a dispute that triggered arbitration. The Second Circuit reversed holding that the provision in their agreements alone was sufficient to confer standing.
May
16
Posted by : | On : May 16, 2008
On May 14, 2008, the Fifth Circuit rejected North Texas Specialty Physicians’ petition for review of an order that found certain of its activities constituted price-fixing and therefore violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act. North Texas Specialty Physicians v. FTC, No. 06-60023, 2008 WL 2043040 (5th Cir. May 14, 2008). The Fifth Circuit found that the agreement among the physicians met the commerce requirement because if successful, “the advantages of competition have been adversely affected for out-of-state employers and payors.” The court affirmed the FTC’s use of the “quick look” and the FTC’s holding that the fee setting provisions were unrelated to any of the organization’s procompetitive efficiencies. The court modified one provision in the FTC’s remedial order, however, that prohibited the NTSP from entering into an agreement with its members where they “deal[t with, refuse[d] to deal, or threaten[ed] to refuse to deal with any payor.” As the court observed, “it is difficult to see how the NTSP can both deal and refuse to deal with any payor.” The rest of the order was affirmed.