Restraint of Trade Agreements

Question 1

U.S. v. Addyston Pipe & Steel

Answer 1

Naked v. Ancillary Restraints

Question 2

U.S. v. Trenton Potteries Company

Answer 2

Horizontal Price-fixing agreements = per se unlawful

Question 3

Appalachian Coals v. U.S.

Answer 3

Rule of Reason Analysis Introduced

Allowed ruinous competition defense

Court elevates PS > CS

Question 4

U.S. v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.

Answer 4

re-established Horizontal Price-fixing Agreements = Per se Unlawful

Failing firm defense put to rest

Question 5

Goldfarb v. VA State Bar

Answer 5

Antitrust law applies to learned professions

Question 6

Broadcast Music Inc v. CBS

Answer 6

Blanket Licenses - rule of reason

“new=product” entitles creator to set new prices

Question 7

Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society

Answer 7

Per se rule applies to both MAX and MIN price-fixing agreements

Question 8

NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma & University of Georgia Athletic Association

Answer 8

Quick-look analysis (under rule of reason)

Question 9

California Dental Association v. FTC

Answer 9

Quick-look analysis only appropriate if it can easily be seen to product anticompetitive effects.

Judged under Rule of Reason

Dissent: 4-prong rule of reason

i. What is restraint at issue
ii. Does it have potential for anti-competitive effects
iii. Did D offer justification for pro-competitive
iv. Did they have market power

Question 10

U.S. v. Container Corp of America

Answer 10

Info exchange per se if:

§ Fungible product
§ Few sellers
§ competition on price
Inelastic demand

Question 11

Todd v. Exxon

Answer 11

○ Treat info exchange under rule of reason
○ Judge Sotomayer:
§ Is market susceptible to coordination?
□ Concentrated?
□ Fungible?
□ Demand inelastic?
§ Nature of info being exchanged
□ Current?
□ Customer specific or aggregated?
Are parties keeping data private or public?

Question 12

American Needle v. NFL

Answer 12

Combination or conspiracy is unlawful if the agreement deprives the marketplace of independent decision-making.

Question 13

Interstate Circuit v. U.S.

Answer 13

Agreement to participate in a conspiracy may be inferred from course of conduct

§ 1 Sherman

Question 14

Theater Enterprises v. Paramount Distributing

Answer 14

Parallel business activity between competitors –> not enough proof for antitrust violation alone

Question 15

Du Pont & Ethyl Corp v. FTC

Answer 15

Unilateral, parallel conduct in an OLIGOPOLISTIC market does NOT constitute unfair competition

Question 16

Bell Atlantic v. Twombly

Answer 16

1. Conclusory statements of claims will no longer survive a motion to dismiss
2. Plaintiff must show evidence of some sort of agreement to restrain trade or commerce.

Question 17

U.S. v. Sealy

Answer 17

Restraint is horizontal and price-fixing is per se unlawful

Question 18

U.S. v. Topco

Answer 18

Agreement to divide up market into exclusive territories –> per se unlawful § 1 Sherman