Law Commons^™

The New Era Of Nfl Antitrust Law, The Sunday Ticket Package: Was The Ninth Circuit Ruling A Touchdown Or A Penalty?, Maya Rustom

Pepperdine Law Review

Americans love football, but every year thousands of fans are forced to pay exorbitant annual fees if they chose to have access to out-of-market games. In other words, if fans don’t live in the territory of their favorite team, they can either pay an excessive annual fee to watch their team play or miss out on the majority of games every season. This arrangement is a result of DirecTV’s Sunday Ticket Package, which is an exclusive distributorship agreement with the NFL that prevents fans from watching live out-of-market games unless they pay the annual subscription fee. This Comment addresses and …

Apple V. Pepper: Rationalizing Antitrust’S Indirect Purchaser Rule, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

In Apple v. Pepper the Supreme Court held that consumers who allegedly paid too much for apps sold on Apple’s iStore could sue Apple for antitrust damages because they were “direct purchasers.” The decision reflects some bizarre complexities that have resulted from the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Illinois Brick, which held that only direct purchasers could sue for overcharge injuries under the federal antitrust laws. The indirect purchaser rule was problematic from the beginning. First, it was plainly inconsistent with the antitrust damages statute, which gives an action to “any person who shall be injured in his business …

The Direct Purchaser Requirement In Clayton Act Private Litigation: The Case Of Apple Inc. V. Pepper , Konstantin G. Vertsman

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

More than fifty years after the Supreme Court’s decision in Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp. established the direct purchaser rule, the Supreme Court was provided with an opportunity in Apple Inc. v. Pepper to reevaluate and update the proximate cause standing requirement for litigation under § 4 of the Clayton Act. In the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision, the majority opinion established a rule that consumers who purchase directly from a monopolist satisfy the direct purchaser standing requirement notwithstanding the internal business structure of the monopolist. This interpretation of the direct purchaser rule, along with the recent reformulation …

Standing In The Way Of The Ftaia: Exceptional Applications Of Illinois Brick, Jennifer Fischell

Michigan Law Review

In 1982, Congress enacted the Foreign Antitrust Trade Improvements Act (FTAIA) to resolve uncertainties about the international reach and effect of U.S. antitrust laws. Unfortunately, the FTAIA has provided more questions than answers. It has been ten years since the Supreme Court most recently interpreted the FTAIA, and crucial questions and circuit splits abound. One of these questions is how to understand the convergence of the direct purchaser rule (frequently referred to as the Illinois Brick doctrine) and the FTAIA. Under the direct purchaser rule, only those who purchase directly from antitrust violators are typically permitted to sue under section …

Reexamining The Role Of Illinois Brick In Modern Antitrust Standing Analysis, Jeffrey Harrison

Jeffrey L Harrison

This Article argues that it is time for either the Court or Congress to reexamine Illinois Brick for the purpose of reconciling it with more general principles of antitrust standing. The overall goals of such an endeavor would be to ensure consistent treatment of similarly situated potential plaintiffs and to rationalize private antitrust enforcement.

With The Illinois Brick Wall Down, What's Left?: Determining Antitrust Standing Under State Law, Kellen S. Dwyer

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

This Article deals with a problem which has repeatedly arisen in state and federal courts, resulting in a number of splintered opinions. In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled that only direct purchasers of a price-fixed product may sue under the Sherman Act. Thus, under the "Illinois Brick rule," consumers who buy a price-fixed product from a middle-man may not sue. Many states responded by passing "Illinois Brick repealers" which aimed to allow such suits. This Article addresses two questions which have divided the state and federal courts: Did the Illinois Brick repealers grant automatic standing to any indirect purchaser of …

A Primer On Antitrust Damages, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

This paper considers the theory of antitrust damages and then discusses some simple models for proving them. Antitrust damages theory begins with the premise that many practices alleged to violate the antitrust laws cause no consumer harm. Others are inefficient and have few socially redeeming virtues. Still others may simultaneously increase both the efficiency of the participants and their market power. A perfectly designed antitrust policy would exonerate the first set of practices, condemn the second set, and condemn the third set only when the social cost of the restraint exceeds its social value or they produce net harm to …

Resolving The Circuit Split On Standing In False Advertising Claims And Incorporation Of Prudential Standing In State Deceptive Trade Practices Law: The Quest For Optimal Levels Of Accurate Information In The Marketplace, Kevin M. Lemley

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

This article has two significant goals. First, it addresses the circuit split on the proper test for standing in false advertising claims under section 43 (a) of the Lanham Act. With slight modification, courts should adopt the reasonable interest test as articulated in two recent opinions authored by Justice Alito while he was sitting on the Third Circuit of Appeals, Second, this article proposes similar prudential standing considerations, along with proposed legislative amendments, for state deceptive trade laws. This section of the article focuses primarily on Arkansas law, but the proposals set forth can be applied to other jurisdictions. The …

Standing For Extraterritoriality: Defining The Empagran Exception, Max Huffman

ExpressO

Efforts by private plaintiffs to enforce the U.S. antitrust laws extraterritorially have become an enormous industry. A reflection of the challenges facing federal courts in this global age, F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A. (Empagran) held the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA) precluded the assertion by U.S. courts of jurisdiction over claims by foreign plaintiffs alleging harm felt in wholly foreign commerce.

Empagran left an exception that undermines its general rule. Plaintiffs able sufficiently to show “the anticompetitive conduct’s domestic effects were linked to their foreign harm” are excepted from the preclusion. This is the “Empagran exception.” …

Reexamining The Role Of Illinois Brick In Modern Antitrust Standing Analysis, Jeffrey L. Harrison

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article argues that it is time for either the Court or Congress to reexamine Illinois Brick for the purpose of reconciling it with more general principles of antitrust standing. The overall goals of such an endeavor would be to ensure consistent treatment of similarly situated potential plaintiffs and to rationalize private antitrust enforcement.

Antitrust Standing In Private Merger Cases: Reconciling Private Incentives And Public Enforcement Goals, Joseph F. Brodley

Michigan Law Review

This article examines a vital problem of private antitrust enforcement - the standing of private merger litigants - where the unresolved tension between public antitrust goals and the private interests of litigants threatens enforcement breakdown. Private merger enforcement is at risk not because courts have determined that such enforcement is undesirable, but because courts have failed to see the problem as an issue of systems design requiring effective integration of public and private enforcement. Instead they have focused on particular elements of antitrust standing - feared abuses by wrongly motivated plaintiffs - neglecting system-wide effects and jeopardizing the health of …

Fringe Firms And Incentives To Innovate, Jonathan Baker

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

Employee Standing Under Section 4 Of The Clayton Act, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note will focus on the confusion that plagues one category of antitrust standing cases, those in which an employee alleges wrongful discharge for his refusal to participate in a scheme that violates the antitrust laws. Conflicts among the circuits in their analysis and resolution of these employee standing cases have not been definitively settled by the Supreme Court's recent pronouncements on the right to seek recovery under section 4. This Note argues that these recent Supreme Court decisions, as well as the policies behind the antitrust laws, weigh in favor of permitting an employee to maintain a section 4 …

Antitrust Law - Standing - Direct Purchasers From Defendants' Competitors Lack Standing To Bring Treble Damage Action, Indirect Purchasers From Defendants Have Standing To Seek Injunctive Relief, Robert C. Mickle

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.