The antitrust professors' amicus brief I joined in Visa Inc. v. Osborn argues that it isn't "collusion" under antitrust law for entities to merely have governance rights in an organization.
The amicus brief I joined with other antitrust professors in Visa Inc. v. Osborn.
In this wrap-up post about my Fifth Circuit amicus brief in Teladoc v. Texas Medical Board, I explain why Texas law supposedly limiting the Board's self-dealing is irrelevant to whether the Board is "actively supervised", and why denying state-action immunity is consistent with federalism.
No way, at least when we're talking about state agencies dominated by active market participants, and when the judicial review is deferential. My Fifth Circuit amicus brief explains why this is so.
In my amicus brief in Teladoc v. Texas Medical Board, related to the antitrust state-action immunity doctrine, I explain why occupational licensing boards, especially those dominated by market participants, can act anticompetitively -- and how federal antitrust law deals with the problem.
Self-dealing and anticompetitive behavior, that's what. My amicus brief (on behalf of 55 antitrust and competition policy scholars) in Teladoc v. Texas Medical Board explains why a doctor-regulating board of practicing doctors can be held liable under federal antitrust law.
A district court ruled that the NCAA's amateurism rules violated the Sherman Act. A group of antitrust scholars (including me) filed a brief in favor of the NCAA; the Ninth Circuit, mentioning our brief, partly took our position.
This antitrust state-action doctrine case was argued at the Supreme Court last week, and I've recorded a podcast about it for the Federalist Society.
The debate over Amazon's conflict with publishers should focus more on a crucial benefit of Amazon's emphasis on cost-cutting: it increases public access to the marketplace of ideas.
Antitrust scholars in an upcoming Supreme Court case argue for denying state-action antitrust immunity to essentially private licensing boards.