Justia Antitrust & Trade Regulation Opinion Summaries

Cherry Grove Beach Gear, LLC, operated by Derek and Jacqueline Calhoun, began providing beach equipment rentals and setup services on public beaches in the City of North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, starting in 2020. The City informed CGBG that its activities violated local ordinances, but the company continued operating despite repeated warnings and complaints from competitors. In response, the City enacted a new ordinance in June 2022 that explicitly restricted professional setup of beach equipment on City beaches to City officials only. CGBG persisted with its services and received several citations for noncompliance.Following these actions, CGBG filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, alleging that the City had unlawfully established a monopoly over beach equipment rentals and setup services, violating federal antitrust law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, determining that the municipal ordinances qualified for state action immunity from federal antitrust liability under the Parker doctrine, based on relevant South Carolina statutes.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that the South Carolina statutes in question clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy allowing municipalities to create exclusive franchises for beach equipment rentals and setup, and that the anticompetitive effects were a foreseeable result of this legislative authorization. The court also rejected CGBG’s argument for a “market participant exception” to state action immunity, noting that precedent does not recognize such an exception. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the City is entitled to state action immunity and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Cherry Grove Beach Gear, LLC v. City of North Myrtle Beach" on Justia Law

A distributor of television programming alleged that three groups of broadcasters, including two that were so-called “sidecar” entities of a larger broadcaster, engaged in a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy. The distributor claimed that the broadcasters coordinated through a common negotiator to demand supracompetitive retransmission fees during contract renewal talks. When the distributor declined to pay the demanded rates, it lost access to the broadcasters’ stations in certain markets, resulting in blackouts for subscribers and subsequent lost profits.Prior to this appeal, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the case. The district court granted the broadcasters’ motion to dismiss the federal antitrust claims, concluding that the distributor lacked antitrust standing. Specifically, the district court found that there was no antitrust injury because the distributor did not actually pay the alleged supracompetitive prices, and that the distributor was not an efficient enforcer since its injuries were indirect and speculative. Consequently, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the distributor’s remaining state law claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the distributor plausibly alleged an antitrust injury, as lost profits from a reduction in output (subscriber losses caused by blackouts resulting from price fixing) are a cognizable form of antitrust injury. The court further held that the distributor is an efficient enforcer because it was the direct target of the alleged conspiracy and had a preexisting course of dealing with the broadcasters. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the federal antitrust claims, vacated the decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "DirecTV, LLC v. Nexstar Media Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Several individuals who were former partners at Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., BGC Holdings L.P., and Newmark Holdings L.P. separated from those partnerships and were entitled to receive certain payments after their departure. These payments included an initial amount plus four annual installment payments, but the partnership agreements allowed the partnerships to withhold the annual payments if the former partners engaged in broadly defined “Competitive Activity.” The partnerships exercised this right and withheld payments from the plaintiffs after determining they had engaged in such activity. The plaintiffs alleged that these provisions constituted unreasonable restraints of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and, for two plaintiffs, a violation of Delaware’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to plead an “antitrust injury,” which is necessary to assert a claim under the Sherman Act, and further held that the implied covenant claims failed because the partnership agreements gave the partnerships express contractual discretion to withhold the payments when a former partner competed, leaving no contractual gap for the implied covenant to fill. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The court held that the plaintiffs’ pecuniary injuries, stemming from the withholding of payments, were not antitrust injuries because they did not result from anticompetitive conduct affecting their status as market participants, nor were their injuries inextricably intertwined with any anticompetitive scheme. Regarding the implied covenant claims, the Third Circuit found that the relevant agreements expressly permitted withholding the payments under the circumstances, and there was no plausible allegation that the partnerships exercised their discretion in bad faith. View "McLoughlin v. Cantor Fitzgerald L.P." on Justia Law

Epic Games, a developer and operator of the Epic Games Store, sued Apple over its App Store practices, alleging violations of federal and California competition law. The dispute centered on Apple’s rules requiring developers to use Apple’s in-app payment system, which imposed a 30% commission, and its prohibition of developers directing users to other purchasing options outside the App Store. After a bench trial, the district court found Apple’s anti-steering provisions violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by preventing informed consumer choice but upheld Apple’s in-app payment system requirement for digital goods. The court issued an injunction barring Apple from restricting developers from including in their apps buttons, links, or other calls to action that direct users to alternative purchasing mechanisms.Following the injunction, Apple implemented a compliance plan involving a 27% commission on linked-out purchases and a series of restrictions on how developers could present external payment options, including limitations on button design, link placement, and user flow. Epic contested Apple’s compliance, arguing these measures still effectively prohibited alternative purchases. After holding multiple evidentiary hearings, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found Apple in civil contempt for failing to comply with the injunction, citing Apple’s bad faith and pretextual justifications. The district court imposed broad sanctions, including prohibiting any commission on linked-out purchases, restricting Apple’s ability to limit external links, and referring Apple for criminal investigation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s contempt findings and most of the resulting sanctions but found portions of the sanctions—particularly the blanket ban on commissions—overbroad and more punitive than coercive. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded those parts for further tailoring, clarified the scope of permissible developer link prominence, and declined to vacate the injunction or reassign the case. The court otherwise affirmed the district court’s orders. View "EPIC GAMES, INC. V. APPLE INC." on Justia Law

A student athlete who played football at Rutgers University challenged two NCAA Division I bylaws that counted seasons played at junior colleges toward the NCAA’s limit of four seasons of eligibility over a five-year period. The athlete, Jett Elad, had played at Ohio University, Garden City Community College (a junior college), and UNLV, exhausting his eligibility under the rule despite only playing three seasons at NCAA Division I schools. After learning of a favorable ruling for another athlete in a similar situation, Elad sought a waiver from the NCAA, which was denied. He then entered the transfer portal, was recruited by Rutgers, received a lucrative NIL contract, and filed suit seeking an injunction to allow him to play an additional season.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Elad a preliminary injunction, preventing the NCAA from counting his junior college season toward his eligibility limit. The NCAA appealed, arguing that the rule was not subject to antitrust scrutiny and that the lower court had failed to properly define the relevant market for its antitrust analysis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and applied de novo review to the district court’s legal conclusions and clear error review to factual findings. The appellate court held that NCAA eligibility rules are not categorically exempt from Sherman Act scrutiny and that the challenged “JUCO Rule” had a commercial effect because it restrained participation in the college football labor market. However, the court found that the district court erred by failing to adequately define the relevant market and by relying on outdated market realities that did not reflect changes following NCAA v. Alston. The Third Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to conduct a proper market analysis. View "Elad v. NCAA" on Justia Law

Two psychiatrists challenged the practices of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN), alleging that ABPN unlawfully tied its specialty certification to its maintenance of certification (MOC) product, thereby violating antitrust law and causing unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs argued that ABPN’s monopoly over specialty certifications forced doctors to purchase the MOC product, which includes both activity and assessment requirements, in order to maintain their professional standing and employment opportunities. They claimed that the MOC product functioned as a substitute for other continuing medical education (CME) products required for state licensure, and that this arrangement harmed competition in the CME market.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint with prejudice. The district court found that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege an illegal tying arrangement under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, specifically because they did not show that ABPN’s MOC product was a viable substitute for other CME products. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs had multiple opportunities to amend their complaint and had not demonstrated how further amendment would cure the deficiencies.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that psychiatrists and neurologists view ABPN’s MOC product as reasonably interchangeable with other CME offerings. The court found that, even if MOC participation could partially or fully satisfy state CME requirements, the additional time, cost, and effort required by the MOC program made it implausible that doctors would choose MOC over other CME products. The court also upheld the district court’s decision to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, finding no abuse of discretion. View "Lazarou v. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology" on Justia Law

A company that supplies allergy testing materials and personnel to primary-care physicians in Tennessee alleged that several insurers and a dominant allergy-care medical group conspired to drive it and its contracting physicians out of the market. The company provided technicians and supplies to physicians, who then billed insurers for allergy services. The company claimed that the insurers and the medical group coordinated audits, denied claims, and set restrictive reimbursement policies, which led physicians to stop using its services and caused it financial harm.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee dismissed the company’s federal antitrust claims at the pleading stage, finding it lacked standing to sue under the antitrust laws, and later granted summary judgment to the defendants on the company’s state-law tort claims. The company appealed both the dismissal of its antitrust claims and the grant of summary judgment on its tort claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The Sixth Circuit clarified that, under federal antitrust law, a plaintiff must show both antitrust injury and proximate causation. The court held that the company’s injuries were only indirect, as they resulted from harms inflicted on the physicians, who were the direct victims of the alleged anticompetitive conduct. Applying the Supreme Court’s rule from Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, the court found that indirect sellers—those two or more steps removed in the distribution chain—may not sue for antitrust violations. The court also affirmed summary judgment on the state-law claims, concluding that the company failed to show either malice or causation as required for tortious interference, and that its civil conspiracy claim could not survive without an underlying tort. View "Academy of Allergy & Asthma in Primary Care v. Amerigroup Tennessee, Inc." on Justia Law

A fuel distribution company sought to acquire a competitor in Western Alaska, prompting the State to sue for anticompetitive conduct under Alaska’s consumer protection laws. To resolve the dispute, the State and the company negotiated a consent decree requiring the company to divest a portion of its fuel storage capacity in Bethel to another distributor, Delta Western, before completing the acquisition. The consent decree specified that it would expire in 30 years or could be dissolved by court order for good cause. Delta Western was not a party to the consent decree, but entered into a separate fuel storage contract with the acquiring company as required by the decree. The contract’s term extended beyond the initial five years at Delta Western’s option.Years later, the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Second Judicial District, Nome, dissolved the consent decree at the acquiring company’s request. The company then notified Delta Western that it considered the fuel storage contract terminated as a result. Delta Western filed a breach of contract action in Anchorage Superior Court, seeking to enforce the contract and arguing that its terms were independent of the consent decree. The contract case was transferred to Nome Superior Court, which issued a preliminary ruling that the contract remained valid despite the dissolution of the consent decree. The court also vacated its initial order dissolving the consent decree to allow Delta Western to intervene and present its position.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed whether dissolution of the consent decree automatically terminated the fuel storage contract and whether the superior court abused its discretion by permitting Delta Western to intervene. The court held that dissolution of the consent decree did not automatically void the contract between the parties, and that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Delta Western to intervene. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decisions and lifted the stay on the contract case. View "Crowley Marine Services, Inc. v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law

Diego Pavia, a college football player, sought to play for Vanderbilt University during the 2025 season. After a successful 2024 season, Pavia faced ineligibility under National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules, which limit athletes to four seasons of intercollegiate competition, including seasons played at junior colleges. Pavia’s path included time at a junior college, New Mexico State University, and Vanderbilt. The NCAA counted his 2021 junior college season toward his eligibility, effectively barring him from playing in 2025. Pavia argued that this rule violated the Sherman Act and sought injunctive relief to allow him to play in the 2025 and 2026 seasons.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted Pavia a preliminary injunction, preventing the NCAA from enforcing the rule against him for the 2025 season and from applying its restitution rule to Vanderbilt or Pavia based on his participation. The NCAA appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.While the appeal was pending, the NCAA issued a waiver allowing all similarly situated athletes, including Pavia, to play in the 2025 season. The NCAA confirmed that this waiver would remain in effect regardless of the outcome of the appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that, because Pavia had already received the relief he sought at the preliminary injunction stage, the appeal was moot. The court held that it could not grant any further effectual relief and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court also declined to vacate the preliminary injunction, finding that the NCAA’s own actions had caused the case to become moot. View "Pavia v. NCAA" on Justia Law

Several plaintiffs, including an individual, an investment fund, and a limited partnership, engaged in trading derivatives tied to the Sterling London Interbank Offered Rate (Sterling LIBOR). They alleged that a group of major banks conspired to manipulate Sterling LIBOR for their own trading advantage. The plaintiffs claimed that the banks coordinated false submissions to the rate-setting process, sometimes inflating and sometimes deflating the benchmark, which in turn affected the value of Sterling LIBOR-based derivatives. The plaintiffs asserted that this manipulation was orchestrated through internal and external communications among banks and with the help of inter-dealer brokers.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the case and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the Sherman Act and the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The district court found that two plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing because they were not “efficient enforcers” and had not transacted directly with the defendants, resulting in only indirect and remote damages. The court also determined that the third plaintiff, a limited partnership, lacked the capacity to sue and had not properly assigned its claims to a substitute entity. Additionally, the court found that one plaintiff failed to adequately plead specific intent for the CEA claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, but on a narrower ground. The Second Circuit held that none of the plaintiffs plausibly alleged actual injury under either the Sherman Act or the CEA. The court explained that because the alleged manipulation was multidirectional—sometimes raising and sometimes lowering Sterling LIBOR—the plaintiffs did not show that they suffered net harm as a result of the defendants’ conduct. Without specific allegations of transactions where they were harmed by the manipulation, the plaintiffs’ claims could not proceed. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed, and the cross-appeal was dismissed as moot. View "Sonterra Cap. Master Fund, Ltd. v. UBS AG" on Justia Law