Antitrust Today Blog

A Five-Year Anniversary For A Major Standard-Setting Antitrust Law

Five years ago this month, a new federal law aimed at encouraging standard-setting activities took effect – the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act (SDOAA) of 2004.  Why did Congress pass it?  And five years later, how has it fared? In many industries, non-profit “standards development organizations” (SDOs) collaborate with businesses to develop industry-wide standards – from common light...

Think Indirect Purchaser Liability is Dead? Think Again.

Since the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, plaintiffs have not been able to recover damages suffered by indirect purchasers from anticompetitive conduct stemming from §1 of the Sherman Act.  While this bar has existed for more than 30 years, plaintiffs are not without recourse. That’s because more than 25 states enacted laws, sometimes called “Illinois Brick...

Bundled Discounts – Good For Competition?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 1109 (2009), suggests that the Court will apply predatory pricing analysis to all antitrust claims with an aspect of low pricing. So it follows that bundled-discounting claims would likely receive the same treatment from the Court that price squeeze claims did.  A bundled discount is where a firm grants a...

Price Squeeze Claims: Antitrust Or Anticompetition?

Some major changes could be afoot in how U.S. law governs monopolist pricing.  The Supreme Court’s February 25, 2009 decision in Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications Inc., 129 S.Ct. 1109, marks quite a departure from long-standing price claim precedent.  Let’s take a look how. Price squeezing can occur when a dominant supplier in one market also competes with its buyers in their market. ...