June’s summer season brings heat to several debates as legislators on both sides of the Atlantic focused on upcoming cases that could mark a turning point for the Telecommunications, Internet and Internet Services markets. Certainly an interesting summer rush, which may lead to a few shocking news in the coming months as the dust settles on major decisions and upheavals from the past year.
Just a few days after the Justices of the Supreme Court conferred on the cert petition in the Vitamin C price fixing antitrust case, the Court asked the Acting Solicitor General to file a brief “expressing the views of the United States.”
Terra Hittson and Jonathan H. Hatch (Antitrust Update)
Robert Connolly (Cartel Capers)
If you have sold or purchased a home recently, you might be under the impression that real estate commissions—the price to engage a real estate broker—are fixed or otherwise set by law in different geographic markets.
Jarod Bona (The Antitrust Attorney)
David Garcia and Nadezhda Nikonova (Antitrust Law Blog)
Philipp Werner & Christian Fulda (Antitrust Connect/Jones Day)
In the latest development in the massive auto parts antitrust litigation, the State of California settled with Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. and related companies regarding their sale of wire harness systems and heater control panels at allegedly supracompetitive prices. Sumitomo did not admit to any wrongdoing, but agreed to pay California over $800,000
Today is an important day for EU competition law. For various reasons I have not commented publicly on Google’s cases for over two years now (for our previous extensive coverage, see here) The most recent of those reasons is that whereas I used to be a neutral observer (like Pablo still is) I have recently started advising Google in some competition matters, although as of today not directly on the Shopping case.
Alfonso Lamadrid (Chilling Competition)
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), issued an aggressive Opinion on the 31 May 2017, aimed at dashing the hopes of letterbox subsidiaries in the EU. The Opinion also sought to govern growing competition between EU Member States for business relocating as a result of Brexit.
I have written often about the need to reform the Sentencing Guideline for antitrust violations. U.S.S.G. 2R1.1. My major beef is that the antitrust guideline measures culpability primarily by the volume of commerce subject to the agreement, to the exclusion of many other very relevant factors…
Robert Connolly (Cartel Capers)
Complex transactions are subject to an increased level of antitrust scrutiny by competition authorities. This often results in extended waiting periods between signing and closing – it can nowadays be one year or even longer before the parties are able to implement the deal.
Thomas Wilson (Antitrust Connect/Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer)
On June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, a multi-plaintiff State product liability case in which the Court rejected a loose standard for personal jurisdiction for claims brought by out-of-State plaintiffs.
Robert Reznick & Elena Kamenir (Orrick Antitrust)