Winds of change are blowing through Europe’s national courts, beginning with a new antitrust damages Directive requiring changes in national laws to facilitate private enforcement of competition law. This step was a major change, and an equally significant development has taken place in the U.K., which will make it even more attractive to private enforcement. As of 1 October, 2015, the U.K.’s long-anticipated opt-out class action procedure will be available.
Continue Reading Evolving Private Remedies for Competition Infringements in Europe: Class Actions in the U.K.
False Advertising and Antitrust Law: Sometimes the Twain Should Meet
Imagine that a drug manufacturer figured out how to compete with a blockbuster drug by making a cheaper and more effective alternative. The pharmaceutical company that makes the blockbuster drug
Continue Reading False Advertising and Antitrust Law: Sometimes the Twain Should Meet
LCD Court Dismisses Motorola’s Multi-Billion Dollar Antitrust Claims Based On Overseas Purchases
On January 23, in a landmark decision that is one of the most important yet to be handed down in the sprawling LCD antitrust litigation pending in various federal courts since 2006, Judge Joan Gottschall of the Northern District of Illinois dismissed plaintiff Motorola Mobility’s price-fixing claims based on overseas purchases by its foreign affiliates, ruling that the claims were barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (“FTAIA”), which limits the application of American antitrust laws to foreign conduct. The decision effectively eliminates from the case more than 99% of Motorola’s $5.4 billion in claimed damages.
Continue Reading LCD Court Dismisses Motorola’s Multi-Billion Dollar Antitrust Claims Based On Overseas Purchases
Plaintiffs Hit an Illinois Brick Wall: Indirect Purchasers of iPhone Apps Lack Standing to Bring Antitrust Suit
On December 2, 2013, United States District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California dismissed a case against Apple brought by a putative class of consumers who purchased applications from the App Store claiming that Apple’s 30 percent commission violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Judge Gonzalez Rogers held that the consumers were indirect purchasers barred from bringing suit under Illinois Brick and dismissed the case with prejudice. In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, No. 11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal December 2, 2013).
Continue Reading Plaintiffs Hit an Illinois Brick Wall: Indirect Purchasers of iPhone Apps Lack Standing to Bring Antitrust Suit
Plaintiffs Hit an Illinois Brick Wall: Indirect Purchasers of iPhone Apps Lack Standing to Bring Antitrust Suit
On December 2, 2013, United States District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California dismissed a case against Apple brought by a putative class of consumers who purchased applications from the App Store claiming that Apple’s 30 percent commission violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Judge Gonzalez Rogers held that the consumers were indirect purchasers barred from bringing suit under Illinois Brick and dismissed the case with prejudice. In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, No. 11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal December 2, 2013).
Continue Reading Plaintiffs Hit an Illinois Brick Wall: Indirect Purchasers of iPhone Apps Lack Standing to Bring Antitrust Suit
Brick By Illinois Brick: Ninth Circuit Builds High Wall For Indirect Purchaser Suits
The Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed a grant of summary judgment for defendants in an antitrust suit involving alleged price-fixing of ATM fees, holding that the plaintiffs were indirect purchasers within the meaning of Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) and could not satisfy an exception to the “Illinois Brick wall,” which deprives indirect purchasers of standing to bring federal antitrust claims. In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, No. 10-17354 (9th Cir. July 12, 2012).
Continue Reading Brick By Illinois Brick: Ninth Circuit Builds High Wall For Indirect Purchaser Suits
Brick By Illinois Brick: Ninth Circuit Builds High Wall For Indirect Purchaser Suits
The Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed a grant of summary judgment for defendants in an antitrust suit involving alleged price-fixing of ATM fees, holding that the plaintiffs were indirect purchasers within the meaning of Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) and could not satisfy an exception to the “Illinois Brick wall,” which deprives indirect purchasers of standing to bring federal antitrust claims. In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, No. 10-17354 (9th Cir. July 12, 2012).
Continue Reading Brick By Illinois Brick: Ninth Circuit Builds High Wall For Indirect Purchaser Suits