Justia Antitrust & Trade Regulation Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their putative class action asserting antitrust claims against defendants where plaintiffs alleged that the fares they paid for airline tickets were unlawfully excessive and in violation of both state and federal antitrust and consumer protection laws. At issue was whether plaintiffs' state law claims were properly dismissed; whether the court erred in denying plaintiffs' leave to amend to add federal claims; and whether the court had jurisdiction to review the interlocutory case management order governing the pretrial coordination of pending cases in the same multidistrict litigation. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' state law claims and held that the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, 49 U.S.C. 41713, preempted state regulations of foreign air carriers. The court also held that the district court erred in denying plaintiffs' leave to amend to add federal antitrust claims where the district court applied an incorrect legal standard to plaintiffs' motion by denying leave to amend on the basis of the court's prior case management order. The court further held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the interlocutory case management order where these decisions did not represent final judgments.

The real estate multiple listing service (MLS) website policy prohibited distribution of information about exclusive agency and other nontraditional listings to public advertising sites through its feeds. The FTC determined that the prohibition was an anti-competitive policy in violation of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45. The Sixth Circuit affirmed after conducting a full rule-of-reason analysis. The MLS is a "contract, combination, or conspiracy" between competing brokers. The policy gave rise to potential genuine adverse effects on competition due to the MLS's substantial market power, the lack of substitutes for its service, and the policy's anticompetitive nature; the policy actually caused actual anti-competitive effects by narrowing information and choices available to consumers and reducing the number of discount-commission listings. Proffered pro-competitive justifications were insufficient to overcome a prima facie case of adverse impact.