Jean-Christophe Roda

While US antitrust experts are still wondering about the future direction of competition policy under the new Trump Administration (see e.g. the "What is Trump Antitrust?" case), there are still questions about the future direction of competition policy under the new Trump Administration.), (...)

In October 2016, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission issued guidelines entitled "Antitrust Guidance for Human Resources Professionals". As its title indicates, this is a document aimed at human resources professionals that describes the practice of antitrust authorities, (...)

In a judgment dated 16 May 2016, the Massachusetts District Court dismissed the complaint of WHDH-TV, a local television station, which accused the large national network NBC, controlled by the company Comcast, of not renewing its affiliation contract with the channel (WHDH-TV v. Comcast Corp. (...)

The fight against the abuses of mass distribution is one of the major recurring themes of competition law (one could even say, a sea snake of competition law). A bill aimed at better defining the abuse of economic dependence is the umpteenth episode in this saga, which reflects the inability (...)

The pharmaceutical sector and the marketing of medicinal products are areas in which federal competition law is now commonplace. The major pharmaceutical companies are regularly confronted with antitrust actions. Sometimes it is the law of monopolization that is enforced, when the company is (...)

With this new Trends issue related to the last evolutions of the French distribution law, the review Concurrences carries on its work on the most important competition issues raised by the Macron law adopted on August 6th, 2015. From small adjustments in transparency law to genuine (...)

Can it constitute anti-competitive behaviour to undertake a series of administrative and legal steps to prevent the establishment of a shopping centre? Above all, is the operator in charge of building the complex the best person to take legal action? These are in substance the questions posed (...)

Arbitration and competition law: the subject is definitely at the heart of the news of this Review (C. Lucas de Leyssac, "Arbitration and competition law: A look back at Eco Swiss". ; L. Idot, L. Burger, C. Partasides, C. Bovet, F. Knoepfler, D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, B. Merkt, "Public Order, (...)

A decision handed down by the Court of Appeals of the First Circuit on October 14, 2015 is an opportunity to look at the American criminal procedure applied following an antitrust trial concerning one of the most serious cartels ever dismantled in the United States (United States of America, (...)

Sport issues continue to fuel antitrust litigation in the United States (see, for example, our Obs. in Concurrences n° 3-2012). A September 30, 2015, decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a class action lawsuit brought by former and current football and basketball players (...)

For some purists, the spirit of American rock’n’roll would have died with the disappearance of Elvis Presley and the accidental death of Jimi Hendrix. A decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, dated August 25, 2015, shows that, in any case, in the small world of musical instruments for (...)

In a decision of June 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit confirmed that Apple had violated the Sherman Act by organizing an agreement between it and several publishers, in order to counter the rise of another giant, Amazon (United States v. Apple, No. 13-3741, 2d Cir., June (...)

Although the commented decision, handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 22, 2015, mainly concerns patent law, it deserves its place in this column for the interesting links it makes with antitrust law (Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, 2015 WL 2473380 U.S., June 22, 2015; much more (...)

U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, No. 14 - 3306, March 15, 2015, Collins Inkjet v. Eastman Kodak Is it possible, where one is in a dominant position on the market for a commodity product, to reward customer loyalty and penalise ’infidels’ by increasing the price of the tying product to (...)

Alongside public enforcement’ and private enforcement’, would companies and their managers who have violated competition law expose themselves to new risks in the form of liability actions by their own shareholders? This question, relating to what one might be tempted to call "in-house" or (...)

The wedding dress was too beautiful... and too expensive! This is perhaps, in a nutshell, the story told in the annotated decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (House of Brides v. Alfred Angelo, Inc. Case No. 1:11-cv-07834, N.D. Ill., 2014). The case (...)

CA 6th Circuit, May 23, 2014, Z Technologies v/Lubrizol, No. 2:12-cv-12206 The question of the statute of limitations for infringements has never been discussed in this column on US competition law, although it is very frequently raised in US antitrust litigation (On these aspects, see J. O. (...)

Federal Court N.D. Ill, January 23, 2014, Motorola Mobility v. AU Optronics, aff. no. 09-cv-6610 It is almost a truism to say that the globalization of trade and the increase in the number of cases with an international dimension probably raise at present the most complex and sensitive (...)

On December 6, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico imposed the longest prison sentence ever imposed in an antitrust case (U.S. v. Frank Peake, Case No. 3:11-cr-00512, U.S. Dist. Ct., DPR, Dec. 6, 2013; v. Equal. U.S. Department of Justice, Former Sea Star (...)

Predatory pricing is a common issue in U.S. antitrust litigation, but convictions on this basis are rarely upheld, as federal case law imposes a strict evidentiary framework on these issues. A December 5, 2013 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit illustrates this state of (...)

For almost forty years, the "indirect purchaser" rule has been a formidable filter for plaintiffs seeking compensation for damage suffered in the event of an anti-competitive practice. The rule was clarified by the Supreme Court in 1977 in its famous Illinois Brick decision and indicates that (...)

Trib. of the Northern District of California, August 3, 2013, Dang v. San Francisco Forty Niners, aff. no. 5:12-CV-5481 Sport and related market litigation is a good client for US antitrust law. This is evidenced by the new case under review in which the Federal Court for the Northern (...)

An American Express decision handed down by the Supreme Court on June 20, 2013, is a new milestone in the jurisprudential edifice that is being built by U.S. class arbitration law (American Express Co. et al. v. Italian Colors Restaurant et al., No. 12-133, 570 U.S. __, 2013). More (...)

In recent weeks, the Supreme Court has issued several important decisions concerning the pharmaceutical industry (Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. __, 2013; Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. __, 2013), but it is undoubtedly the (...)

In a decision of March 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a class action against Comcast, the largest national cable television operator (Comcast Corp. et al., v. Behrend et al. , No. 11-864, U.S. Sup. Ct, March 27, 2013). At first glance, the debates revolve mainly around purely (...)

A December 18, 2012 decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reconfirms that plaintiffs who bring a private action on a "stand-alone" basis (i.e., without acting as a result of an action by the antitrust authorities), must provide sufficiently solid evidence to be able to pass the first (...)

In this end-of-year period (which will be the beginning of the year, when these lines are published), the confectioners’ truce has not taken place in the United States. In 2008, several chocolate purchasers joined together in a class action to obtain the condemnation of the three main (...)

In an important decision of June 27, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, meeting in plenary session ("en banc"), adopted a solution that should greatly facilitate the actions of U.S. plaintiffs and importers seeking to take action against foreign-based cartels (Min-Che, Inc. v. (...)

Rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court in antitrust cases are rare. The U.S. Supreme Court has the discretion to hear and determine individual cases. These decisions are therefore always of considerable importance and significance, either for the questions of principle they decide or for the work (...)

U.S. Supreme Court, March 27, 2013, Comcast Corp. et al, v. Behrend et al, No. 11-864 On November 16, 2012, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice filed a complaint against the company eBay in the United States District Court for the District of California (United States v. (...)

U.S. District Court E.D.N.Y., In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation The present case is a perfect illustration of the globalization of competition law (on this theme, see the work of CREDIMI, Mondialisation et droit de la concurrence, Litec 2008, and especially the concluding report by L. (...)

Recent developments in the football sector raise a number of questions concerning the compatibility of rules issued by the Sport Order with the principles of free competition. Whether this is an issue involving the new law passed in 2012 that establishes a salary cap, the announcement of the (...)

In the previous issue of this column, reference was made to an April 25, 2012, decision of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ( FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 677 F.3d 1298, 11th Cir. 2012: Chron. Foreign Jurisp, Concurrences No. 3-2012, p. 237, obs. J.-C. R.). The latter (...)

Under (or because of) well-established case law, plaintiffs under U.S. competition law are deprived of the opportunity to obtain relief when they are indirect victims of an anticompetitive practice. This is the result of the application of the so-called "indirect purchaser doctrine", (...)

The sports sector regularly fuels antitrust litigation in the United States and offers the opportunity for the federal courts to render fine or important decisions in this area. One of the most recent decisions of the Supreme Court in competition law, for example, was rendered in 2010 in a (...)

Interview conducted by Anne-Lise Sibony, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium, et Jean-Christophe Roda, Université d’Aix-Marseille, France. Doris Hildebrand, your book The Role of Economic Analysis in the EC Competition Rules – The European School is a landmark for European competition (...)

This decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals of April 25, 2012 illustrates the hesitations of U.S. antitrust law regarding certain agreements concluded by pharmaceutical companies (FTC v. Watson Pharms, Inc. , No. 10-12729-DD, 11th Cir., Apr. 25, 2012). Indeed, the case highlights (...)

The period under review was marked by the highly publicized e-Book case, which saw the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice initiate civil suits against Apple and five publishers, including the French company Hachette (U.S. Department of Justice, Complaint, Apple, Inc., No. (...)

Two decisions, issued on 23 March 2012 and 30 March 2012, respectively, by the District Court of California and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, concerned the application of antitrust law in the media sector (on this issue, see recently G. Kimmelman, "Antitrust Enforcement and Media (...)

Criminal trials in which cartelists are tried and convicted are extremely rare in the United States. Like civil antitrust litigation, the vast majority of cartel cases are resolved by settlement: By pleading guilty, companies receive more favorable treatment but forego trial. Since the diamond (...)

Standalone private actions, i.e. those that are not consecutive or complementary to lawsuits initiated by the antitrust authorities (known as "follow on" actions), are far from rare in the United States. The incentive represented by the treble damages, as well as the possibility of regrouping (...)

Can the collective decision taken by several investment funds to refuse an offer by a credit institution to repurchase in advance securities it had issued be analysed as an agreement contrary to Section 1 of the Sherman Act? This is the question that the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh (...)

Litigation under section 2 of the Sherman Act is an ideal terrain for appreciating the complex relationship between antitrust and intellectual property law (W. Kovacic, Intellectual Property Policy and Competition Policy, N.Y.U. Annual Survey on American Law, vol. 66, 2011, pp. 421 et seq.; H. (...)

Hart-Scott-Rodino Premerger Notification Rules and Premerger Notification and Report Form: 76 Fed. Reg. 42,471, July 19, 2011 United States of America v. AT&T Inc, T-Mobile and Deutsche Telekom AG, Case: 1: 11-cv-01S60, August 31, 2011 After antitrust law, it is the turn of federal (...)

United States of America and State of Texas v. United Regional Health Care System, Case No: 7:11-CV-00030 [RCO] While most of the activity of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice concerns the criminal prosecution of cartels (see International Policy Chronicle, Concurrences n° (...)

In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case no. 2:08-CV-3301, June 2, 2011, "GlaxoSmithKline" On June 2, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion to dismiss filed by (...)

The papers gathered in this section provide various points of views on the notion of effect on commerce between member States in EU law, with some US point of view. Professor David Bosco in a brief introduction focuses on the evolution of the notion. According to Irene Luc, Chief legal officer (...)

US Supreme Court, 27 April 2010, Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp, No. 08-1198, 130 S.Ct. 1758 US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 8 March 2011, In re: American Express Merchants’ Litigation, No. 06-1871-CV. US Supreme Court, 27 April 2011, AT&T Mobility LLC v. (...)

The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice continued its intense anti-cartel activity in 2010 and early 2011. As in previous years and since the end of the 1990s, the US authorities have made the dismantling of major international secret horizontal cartels ("hardcore cartels") their (...)

US DOJ, 24 September 2010, United States v. Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, and Pixar On September 24, 2010, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice announced that it had reached a settlement with six Silicon Valley-based high-tech companies. The settlement agreement ends (...)

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, August 17, 2010, State of California v. Safeway, Inc, No. 08-55671 An interesting example of the implementation of the shortened or truncated rule of reason (quick look rule of reason, as opposed to the traditional or full rule of reason; (...)

Leniency programs are now a well established and efficient policies through Europe, both at the EU level and at the national levels. In this sery of 5 articles, EU and national policy officers, academics and practionners give various points of view on the use of lenieny programs in the EU (...)