In 2007, the Cleveland Cavaliers basketball team and Ticketmater rival Flash Seats LLC filed an antitrust action against Ticketmaster. The complaint alleged that Ticketmaster used its substantial market power to unlawfully restrain competition by enforcing its exclusive contract with the Cavaliers to block the basketball team for using Flash Seats as a ticket reseller. Last September, Ticketmaster […]
Author Archives: Steve Semeraro
Whole Foods Merger: Market Definition & Marginal Consumers
June 1, 2009 – 2:50 pm
Update June 2009: The FTC has granted final approval to the proposed settlement. Update March 2009: The parties have reached a settlement allowing the merger to move forward with Whole Foods agreeing to divest the intellectual property in the Wild Oats brand, 13 stores, and the leases and assests of 19 closed stores. A divestiture […]
California Title Insurance Price-Fixing Case Dismissed
May 22, 2009 – 1:59 pm
In Lynn Barton et al. v. Fidelity National Financial Inc. et al., the Northern District of California Judge Jeffrey S. White has dismissed without prejudice, the consolidated class action alleging price-fixing in the California title insurance industry. Guided by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that Twombly’s plausibility standard is […]
Heavy-duty Transmission Monopolization Case Goes Forward
May 22, 2009 – 1:56 pm
In ZF Meritor LLC et al. v. Eaton Corp., the Delaware District Court Judge Sue L. Robinson denied Eaton’s motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiffs may proceed with their antitrust claims accusing Eaton of monopolizing the market for heavy-duty transmissions in North America. The Court held that given the defendants’ “undisputed monopoly power in […]
RealNetworks Files Antitrust Counter-claim re: DVD Copying
May 22, 2009 – 1:53 pm
In RealNetworks Inc. et al. v. DVD Copy Control Association Inc et al. and Universal City Studios LLP et al. v. Real Networks Inc. et al., RealNetworks filed a counterclaim against the movie studios accusing them of violating the Sherman Act by 1) forming an illegal cartel with fellow defendant, the DVD Copy Control Associaion […]
TV Stations Sues Neilsen for Excluding Competition in Ratings Services
May 22, 2009 – 11:46 am
In Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Neilsen Media Research Inc., the plaintiff, a Florida television station operator, sued Neilsen Media Research Inc., alleging that Nielsen violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and the Florida equivalent, by abusing its monopoly in the television ratings industry. Specifically, Sunbeam alleged that Nielsen discouraged potential competitors from entering the television ratings market, and then sharply increased its prices […]
Unionization Does Not Bar Nurses Wage Fixing Claims
May 21, 2009 – 2:55 pm
Update May 2009: The plaintiffs have settled with Oakwood Healthcare for $7.2 and a agreement not to fix nurses salaries in the future. The deal is currently pending court approval. Oakwood did not admit liability, and the settlement includes a provision that would reduce the amount if the plaintiffs settle for less than 2% of […]
Indirect Purchasers Seek to Join I-Pod Antitrust Litigation
May 21, 2009 – 1:48 pm
Update: May 2009: A Northern District of California Judge dismissed the claim that Apple improperly tied I-pods to its itunes music software. The court found that the company did not link the sale of the two products and that either could be used without the other. A class of plaintiffs that have purchased I-Pods from […]
DOJ Proposes Settlement with SC Realtors
May 8, 2009 – 1:42 pm
In May 2008, the DOJ sued the Consolidated Multiple Listing Service of Columbia, S.C., alleging that the operators of the service violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by 1) requiring applicants for membership to discuss the nature of their businesses with a committee of incumbent members who had the power to deny membership to […]
NFL Players Can’t Block Provision of Fantasy Football
May 2, 2009 – 3:16 pm
A Minnesota Federal District Court, following a recent 8th Circuit case involving fantasy baseball, held that NFL football players did not have property rights in their statistics sufficient to permit them to block a company from providing fantasy football league services.