Algorithmic Software Facilitated Price Fixing with Jonathan Rubin

July 3rd, 2024|Categories: ELP|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Everyone knows that price fixing is against the law, chiefly Section 1 of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Competitors may not collude to set prices. However, there are relatively new price-calculation tools that some companies maintain take them out of the equation. With these tools, shared across an industry, firms do not have to directly swap private information with competitors. Instead, they feed their data to a third-party which uses algorithms to come up with prices. In this episode, we discuss what algorithmic or software-facilitated pricing is, what the law says about price collusion, how this new pricing mechanism violates the law, and recent developments in litigation. Our guest highly regarded antitrust attorney Jonathan Rubin, Partner and Co-Founder of MoginRubin LLP.

Read More

Jury Selection in the Age of Conspiracy Theories and Distrust with Tara Trask

April 4th, 2024|Categories: ELP, HB Emerging Law Notes|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

In this episode, we discuss picking juries in an age of misinformation, general distrust, tribalism, unleashed social media surfers, and unorthodox legal strategies unfolding on a daily basis with Tara Trask of Trask Consulting, jury and trial expert. "Jury service is an opportunity for everyday Americans to interact with an important institution, our courts, and play their part as citizens,"Trask says. "The court system could very well be our saving grace in trying to hang on to our democracy." Listen now.

Read More

Cracking the College Sports “Cartel”: Good for Athletes, Competition, and the Games by Joy Sidhwa and Tim LaComb

February 13th, 2024|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Tort Notes, Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, New Featured Post for Home Page, Tort Litigation|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Momentum in the national debate over whether a college athlete should profit from licensing deals for their “names, images, and likenesses,” or NILs, swung in favor of players on June 21, 2021, when the Supreme Court ruled for the athletes in NCAA v. Alston. Authors Joy Sidhwa and Tim LaComb of MoginRubin, LLP discuss the impacts of the decision and subsequent court decisions and state legislation which have further cemented and defined the changing amateurism rules in college sports. As the authors note, "the ultimate test of whether amateurism drives demand will come after new state laws allow compensation unrelated to education. If compensation doesn’t trigger a drop in demand, the NCAA will lose its procompetitive justification for the restriction and likely bring an end to amateurism rules".

Read More

The Plight of the Indirect Purchaser

June 30th, 2023|Categories: ELP, Podcasts|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Consumers and businesses -- indirect purchasers of products whose prices are fixed by those who supply the maker of your purchase may not collect damages in states that -- surprisingly, do not have antitrust laws that give them standing. But what about federal law? Why do some states provide for damages and others do not? Are there alternatives? 

Read More

Beyond Predominance: Alternative Arguments Against Class Certification

June 28th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, New Webinars, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Beyond Predominance: Alternative Arguments Against Class Certification Leverage the Latest Court Decisions to Challenge Class Membership and Defeat Certification. Class certification proceedings often focus on whether common issues predominate over individual issues. Recent decisions, however, highlight the importance of raising arguments beyond those afforded by Rule 23(b)(3)--including arguments arising from other subsections of Rule 23 and those originating in the case law. Join our panel as they discuss recent developments concerning several such avenues for defending against certification, including: Ascertainability. Ascertainability demands that class action plaintiffs present a mechanism for identifying prospective class members before the class is certified. Panelists will explain the federal circuit split on ascertainability issues, discuss recent decisions denying class certification on this ground, and provide insight regarding which arguments seem to be well received in different jurisdictions. Typicality and adequacy. Rule 23(a)'s typicality and adequacy requirements prevent certification if the claims of the named plaintiff(s) are subject to unique defenses not applicable to the class as a whole. Panelists will discuss recent case law in which class action defendants have used these requirements to their advantage and provide litigation strategies for setting up such arguments on class certification. Article III standing. Our panel will discuss the different approaches to applying Ramirez v. TransUnion L.L.C. and Spokeo v. Robins and consider the avenues available to challenge class certification on Article [...]

Read More

Managing Class Representative Discovery: Plaintiffs’ Strategies for Winning Certification

April 6th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, New Webinars, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Statistics in Class Certification and at Trial: Leveraging and Attacking Statistical Evidence Lessons From Recent Cases on the Use of Statistics to Prove Classwide Liability and Damages Increasingly, statistical evidence is used by both sides to argue the makeup of the class, damages, liability, and certification in every type of case: employment, data breach, ESG, antitrust, consumer product, and commercial class action cases. Economists and practitioners can use statistics to measure the impact on individual members and show where there is no impact.Building on Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, Comcast v. Behrend, and Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal recently explored the use of statistical expert evidence in satisfying relevant requirements under Rule 23(b)(3) in Olean Wholesale Grocery Co-op Inc. v. Bumble Foods L.L.C. and once again shifted the certification landscape.Class action lawyers must be able to analyze both the methodology and inferential process that produce statistical evidence, and their effect on admissibility, relevance, and strength of the resulting evidence.Listen as our experienced panel of practitioners examines the use of statistics in class litigation and the implications of recent case law for class litigators seeking to use or restrict these kinds of evidence during class certification and trial. James Finberg Partner Altshuler Berzon Aphrodite Kokolis Counsel Schiff Hardin ON-Demand CLE Webinar This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB audiences. What are [...]

Read More

Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track by Jonathan Rubin

January 4th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Emerging Law Notes, Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, New Featured Post for Home Page|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

The Author Jonathan Rubin (jrubin@moginrubin.com) is Co-Founder and Partner of MoginRubin LLP, a boutique antitrust, mergers and acquisitions, and class action law firm. Since 2001, he has focused his legal practice exclusively on antitrust and competition law and policy. As a litigator he has led trial teams in major antitrust cases in courts throughout the country. Rubin is a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track? "The failure to appropriately adjust the patent system to accommodate the competitive circumstances created when patents are incorporated into standards undermines the purposes of the standard-setting enterprise and impairs the utility and proliferation of standardized technologies. Without a course correction among the judiciary, the United States risks finding itself as a less desirable jurisdiction for pro-growth and pro-competitive patenting and standard-setting activities." Abstract: A consensus at the intersection of patent and anti-trust law was achieved after a series of decisions finding that in some circumstances owners of standard essential patents (SEPs) have an antitrust duty to [...]

Read More

Antiracism and Antitrust with Eric Cramer

June 20th, 2022|Categories: ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Emerging Law Notes|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Our Guest Eric Cramer is Chairman of the Firm and Co-Chair of the Firm’s antitrust department. He has a national practice in the field of complex litigation, primarily in the area of antitrust class actions. He is currently co-lead counsel in multiple significant antitrust class actions across the country in a variety of industries and is responsible for winning numerous significant settlements for his clients totaling well over $3 billion. Mr. Cramer is also a frequent speaker at antitrust and litigation related conferences and a leader of multiple non-profit advocacy groups. He was the only Plaintiffs’ lawyer selected to serve on the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Section Transition Report Task Force delivered to the incoming Obama Administration in 2012. Antiracism and Antitrust with Eric Cramer Among the legal and regulatory avenues one might follow to mitigate the impact of racism, most of us would look to various manifestations of discrimination law in  employment, lending, real estate, education, healthcare, voting rights, and other categories. When presented in those contexts, the anti-racism objectives are clear.  There are several federal laws and many state laws that prohibit anticompetitive behavior.  At the top of the heap is the Sherman Antirust Act of 1890, which outlaws illegal monopolies and anticompetitive tactics, conspiracies to restrain trade, cartels and syndicates.  But [...]

Read More

Cannabis Industry Competition Law with Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver

July 4th, 2021|Categories: ELP, HB Emerging Law Notes|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Attorneys Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver on Cannabis Industry Competition Law What can legitimate cannabis companies do to level the playing field, not only against others who walk the straight and narrow, but dealers still thriving on the black market? It was my pleasure to interview Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver for what was an informative and even surprising podcast. It's based on their article -- Clearing the Haze: State Laws and Private Plaintiffs Critical to Preserve Competition in Cannabis -- which will be featured in the inaugural issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, which will release in January 2021. Ausra, who is an attorney with the global law firm Dentons LLP, has spent more than a decade advising clients in a range of antitrust matters including merger investigations, competitor collaborations, and pricing and distribution policies. She works closely with cannabis clients to help them navigate the rapidly evolving cannabis laws and regulations throughout the U.S. Jennifer is a partner at national antitrust boutique MoginRubin LLP, where she litigates and advises clients on competition issues.  Her work includes representing classes of plaintiffs in class actions, risk mitigation and regulatory advice in mergers and acquisitions, and other complex business litigation. Check out the MoginRubin Blog. The Journal is a collaborative project between [...]

Read More

Will We See More Antitrust Litigation During Biden Administration?

March 16th, 2021|Categories: HB Emerging Law Notes|Tags: |

One Current and One Former FTC Official Weigh in on Outlook for Antitrust Litigation (Excerpt from MoginRubin Blog) FTC Commissioner Noah Phillips and George Washington Law School Competition Law Director William E. Kovacic, who once chaired the agency, appeared on a webinar today (March 16, 2021) hosted by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). Aurelien Portuese, ITIF’s Director of Antitrust and Innovation Policy, asked the speakers what we might expect from the Biden administration in terms of antitrust law, reform, and enforcement. “I think that the aggressiveness that's going on in court right now will increase," Phillips said. "I think you'll see more litigation. What effects that will have I'm not sure. That can result in more antitrust, if you will, but it can also result in losses and legal rulings that don't favor the agencies. But I do think you'll see more litigation." He went on to predict "an increasing attempt to slow M&A generally." “On litigation," former FTC Chair Kovacic said, "the new leadership in many ways is committed to doing much more and, in an exaggerated way, they have denigrated the significance of what's already on the way. They're going to discover in a hurry how hard it is to bring the matters that are in flight already to a successful landing." Read more [...]

Read More
Go to Top