Search

This article explores the relationship between antitrust law and industry-specific regulation in the U.S. After briefly discussing the historical collaboration between antitrust and regulatory law, it explores the cases that show skepticism toward antitrust intervention in regulated industries. It offers a framework for evaluating the application of antitrust law to regulated industries. The article turns to regulatory gaming as an example of behavior that justifies antitrust oversight of regulated markets.

The article presents information on the court case, Cascade Health Solutions v. PeaceHealth, which explored antitrust law violations governing bundled discounting in the U.S. Based on the case, the Ninth Circuit addressed whether a hospitals deep discounts to insurers for making it their sole preferred provider for all hospital care services constituted anticompetitive behavior in violation of section two of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It notes that the Sherman Act prohibits an attempt to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States. The case also contends that, while the court correctly noted that a market-based test which finds bundled discounts presumptively illegal is too broad, so too is the cost-based discount attribution standard adopted by the Ninth Circuit.

This article offers information on various court cases on antitrust policy under Judge John Roberts in the U.S. In such cases, Roberts competently assess claims of commercial predation and expresses its fears on the cost of erroneous findings. In Twombly case, the Court is skeptical about the ability of lower courts to resists drawing "false inferences" in lawsuits involving charges of tacit collusion among oligopolists while in Credit Suisse, Roberts doubts the ability of tribunals to refrain from making unusually serious mistakes. Discussed are the details of the issue.

The article details the case, Leegin Creative Products v. PSKS, in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a nearly 100-year-old doctrine that prohibited vertical resale price restraints. It discusses the background and practice of vertical resale pride maintenance and its economic effects. It then analyzes the underlying economic rationales the Court embraced to reach its decision in Leegin, and the shift in antitrust jurisprudence from finding such restraints per se illegal to holding them subject to a rule of reason. It provides factors for future courts to apply in cases involving re- sale price restraints, given the reliance concerns on the historic doctrine that prohibited them.

The article presents additional developments related to the antitrust law in the U.S. It reviews the Supreme Court's other landmark antitrust case from October Term 2006, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, which changes federal pleading standards. It also provides an analysis of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) approval of the Google/DoubleClick merger in December 2007 and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia's decision to vacate an FTC finding that memory-chip maker Rambus Inc. violated the antitrust laws by allegedly deceiving a standard-setting organization.

This article provides information on the development of the case of Texaco v. Dagher. The Supreme Court has stated in Dagher that it is not unlawful price-fixing in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act 2 for a fully-integrated joint venture to set the prices at which it sells its own products. According to the author, the plaintiffs-respondents that there was more to the case than appears from the Court's opinion, contrary to what might appear from the opinion, the respondents did in fact file a brief in the Supreme Court.

This article presents a perspective on the case of Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. The structure of the decision of the court reflects its focus on policy. After determining that Dr. Miles is bad antitrust policy, the Court concluded that considerations of "stare decisis" do not require a different result. Furthermore, Justice Kennedy posed the question as whether the Court should overrule the per se rule and allow resale price maintenance agreements to be judged by the rule of reason.

The article presents a discussion on the case of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Arch Coal Inc. in its alleged anticompetitive acquisition of Triton Coal Co. It examined the FTC's review of Arch Coal's Triton acquisition and discussed jurisdictional aspects of enforcement. It also analyzed substantive differences on evidence of a proposed fix and discussed policy implications for those impacted by antitrust enforcement.