Antitrust 101

What is the difference between harm to competition and harm to a competitor?  In Brunswick v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, 429 US 477 (1977), the Court gives us an answer.  Join host Gwendolyn Lindsay Cooley and University of Wisconsin Law Students Erin Lyman and Steven Meyer as they discuss Brunswick’s rollup and whether Pueblo Bowl O Mat can get damages for its competitor keeping bowling alleys on the market.

This foundational case is a state antitrust practice basic: why States plead things the way they do.  Host Gwendolyn Lindsay Cooley is joined by Quinnipiac School of Law students Rose Levine and Benjamin Milano to discuss harm to a state’s general economy and what that does for proving standing and injury.

News Flash: Courts do not always agree.  Two courts, the Maryland District Court and the Third Circuit were presented with the same facts and came to opposite legal conclusions.  Join host Gwendolyn Lindsay Cooley and Maryland AAG Byron Warren as they unpick the facts and law of the parallel pricing allegations on summary judgment in two courts: In re Titanium Dioxide (D. Maryland) and Valspar v. EI Dupont de Nemours (3d Cir.).

When are State Boards immune from antitrust liability? Join Antitrust 101 host Gwendolyn Lindsay Cooley and FTC Bureau of Competition Deputy Director Rahul Rao as they discuss NC Dental, the FTC Act and FTC Procedure, and where to get your teeth whitened.

In this doubleheader about foundational State Action cases, MA AAG Katherine Krems and CT AAG Victoria Field join Gwendolyn Lindsay Cooley as they discuss the State Action, the two prong test, and the Court’s caution about gauzy cloaks of state involvement.

Parker v. Brown, 317 US 341 (1943), and California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn v. Midcal Aluminum, 445 US 97 (1980)

Need a brief introduction to the Sherman Act?  Join us on today’s episode of Antitrust 101 Demystified: the Sherman Act.  I will give you a quick tip and some insights on the Sherman Act and where you can see it in the wild.  Designed for beginners, the Demystified series will provide the very basics of the foundational statutes and concepts that are the subject of the cases we read in Antitrust 101. 

Take a “Quick Look” at this episode about a famous almost group boycott of an insurance company and what the Supreme Court thought about that.  Host Gwendolyn Lindsay Cooley is joined by UT AAG Matt Michaloski for some insights about non-price horizontal restraints, group boycotts, and of course, the Quick Look rule of reason.

When is there an antitrust duty to deal with rivals and is all hope lost for plaintiffs on this issue? Join Gwendolyn Lindsay Cooley and Koren Wong Ervin as they discuss this decision, the various views on it, and where it fits in the broader landscape of the duty to deal with rivals.

Have you ever actually read Grinnell? Cited in almost every antitrust case for its articulation of the elusive §2 monopolization standard, this complicated conspiracy/monopolization case is worth a deeper look! Host Gwendolyn Lindsay Cooley is joined by Utah Assistant Attorney General Matt Michaloski as they unravel this intricate case and examine its take on market definition and remedies, as well as that most important bon mot about wilful acquisition or maintenance of power and from what it should be distinguished.

What is the cellophane fallacy? Is it more than just the fallacy of thinking you can use aluminum foil to do all of the jobs of cellophane (don’t try that at home!) Host Gwendolyn Lindsay Cooley is joined by Connecticut Assistant Attorney General Victoria Field and Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Katherine Krems as they dive into market definition and substitution analysis and why it may not be enough to just use cross elasticities of demand.