Two Critical Court Decisions

In this issue:

This issue we analyze two recent highly important antitrust court decisions. The significance of N.Car. Dental is driven home by the fact that professional licensing boards regulate nearly 1/3 of the U.S. workforce. Per Herb Hovenkamp, a key question is “how much federalism” vs. “how much national competition policy.” And FTC. v. St. Luke’s presents two possible lessons: (i) the ACA doesn’t (yet) impact antitrust analysis, and (ii) high post-merger market shares create a presumption of harm that can only be rebutted by proving a negative.

 

The First Critical Court Decision: North Carolina Dental

Herbert Hovenkamp, Apr 27, 2015

Rediscovering Capture: Antitrust Federalism and the North Carolina Dental Case

The Dental case reflects greater paternalism, protecting North Carolina citizens from their own deficient governmental decisions. Herbert Hovenkamp (University of Iowa)

Kenneth Field, Michael Knight, Bevin M.B. Newman, Apr 27, 2015

Supreme Court Requires State Supervision of Professional Boards to Secure Antitrust Immunity

As for market participants who are regulated by these boards, the Court’s novel ruling brings both potential benefits and costs. Kenneth W. Field, Michael H. Knight, & Bevin M.B. Newman (Jones Day)

Austin Smith, Logan Breed, Robert Leibenluft, Apr 27, 2015

North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC: How States Will Respond to Improve Competition and Accountability in State Regulatory Boards

Ho

ACCESS TO THIS ARTICLE IS RESTRICTED TO SUBSCRIBERS

Please sign in or join us
to access premium content!