Business Litigation

Antitrust lawyers well know that price discrimination claims under the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) can be very difficult to win. For example, going as far back as 1953, the SupremeCourt has held that there is no buyer liability under Section 2(f) unless the plaintiff (the disfavored buyer) can show the defendant

In the antitrust context, a “rimless wheel” – or “hub-and-spoke” – conspiracy is not a general conspiracy but instead amounts to multiple conspiracies between the common defendant – e.g., a distributor – and each of the other defendants – e.g., multiple suppliers. This means that, absent allegations establishing a “rim” between

Thirty-five years ago, the California Supreme Court held that vertical price fixing is per se unlawful under California’s antitrust statute. 1 Since then, however, modern economic analysis and federal antitrust jurisprudence have evolved dramatically away from the antiquated common law “restraints on alienation” approach to per se condemnation. For the

As all California antitrust lawyers know, California’s principal antitrust statute is the Cartwright Act.1 The Act “generally outlaws any combinations or agreements which restrain trade or competition or which fix or control prices.”2 And, as the California Supreme Court recently made clear, “[f]rom its inception, [the Act] has always been