U.S. Implements President Trump’s Cuba Policy

On Nov. 8, 2017, the U.S. Government announced new regulations in furtherance of the Trump Administration’s policy regarding Cuba.

In June 2017, President Trump published his National Security Presidential Memorandum “Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba” (NSPM), which announced modification of U.S. policy with respect to Cuba to target the Cuban military, intelligence, and security agencies.  In the NSPM, President Trump emphasized the need to promote the flow of economic benefits to the Cuban people, rather than to its military.  The NSPM further directed the Commerce, State, and Treasury Departments to take various actions implementing the new policy.

Accordingly, regulations were released this week by the U.S. Department of State, Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), and Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) to implement the NSPM, and clarify the limitations imposed on U.S. persons wishing to travel to or do business in Cuba.

This post was written by Sonali Dohale, Kara M. BombachYosbel A. Ibarra & Carl A. Fornaris of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.,©2017
For more Antitrust legal analysis, go to The National Law Review 

U.S. Airways Vs. Sabre: 3 Ways To Prove Healthy Market Competition

Airplane, Sky, U.S. AirwaysAt the heart of any antitrust suit lies the intent to foster healthy competition in the market. But what, exactly, does healthy competition foster? Lower prices, sure. But, more importantly, better products, better services, and more innovative ways to provide them, as well as fair negotiations among vendors.

Successful defense of an antitrust suit starts with proof of healthy competition. A recent battle of the experts in the $134M trial between airline giant, U.S. Airways (recently merged with American Airways), and Sabre Holdings Corp., a trip-planning conglomerate, offered three indicators to successfully prove healthy market competition:


In the trial, U.S. Airways claimed Sabre—as part of a conspiracy to increase airfares and damage U.S. Airway’s position in the market—forced it into an unfair, anti-competitive contract in 2006. At the time Sabre, which boasted a large share of the trip-booking market, served as one of the primary sources of airfare data for a massive network of travel agents responsible for a significant portion of U.S. Airways bookings. In the suit, U.S. Airways claimed it had no choice but to contract with Sabre in order to maintain access to this large travel agent network. Sabre’s expert, however, University of Chicago economics professor Kevin Murphy, pointed to U.S. Airway’s plea as the exact type of reasoning that is detrimental to the market, i.e., lack of innovation.

According to Murphy, U.S. Airways could have researched, planned and implemented the creation of a new technical platform, a “bridge” Murphy called it, to the numerous travel agents that would have alleviated the need to utilize Sabre’s connection. In other words, there was opportunity to innovate had U.S. Airways found the cost of the project in conjunction with the end result—which would have alleviated the need to partner with Sabre—more valuable than the contract with Sabre. Motive and opportunity to innovate around stagnant models is a sign of healthy market competition. In addition, the “threat” of creating a new model, as Murphy put it, also has value and would have impacted negotiations.


To further his argument that the Sabre-U.S. Airways contract was the result of healthy competition, Murphy also pointed to the stern negotiations U.S. Airways and Sabre entered into prior to execution of the contract. Witnesses at the trial testified that U.S. Airways took very stern negotiating positions before a final value was agreed upon between the parties. Murphy explained this could not have occurred had Sabre truly possessed the type of anticompetitive market power U.S. Airways claimed. If that had been the case, Sabre would have simply named their price and left U.S. Airways powerless to refuse. Fair bartering among vendors for provision of unique, in-demand services is another indicator of healthy market competition.


One of the primary points of contention between U.S. Airways’ expert and economist Murphy was Sabre’s “full content” contracts, a requirement by Sabre that air carriers provide access to any and all fares they offer. U.S. Airways’ expert referred to this as a “no discount” constraint. In other words, if the consumer knows the carrier has previously priced a flight at $200, that prevents the carrier from now telling the consumer—with a straight face, at least—that the true value of the flight is $300 but will be generously offered at a discount for only $200. Full disclosure, according to U.S. Airways, limits the carrier’s ability to alter pricing to suit demand. Murphy, however, explained “full content” actually increases competition because it drives prices down. If consumers have all options available at the time of booking, they will often choose the lowest priced option that suits their need. This is the cornerstone of competition. Full disclosure allows for unfettered comparison shopping and enables the consumer to value all options according to personal preference and necessity. If certain options (which are often not simply the lowest-priced) begin to advance, this spawns innovation among market competitors to match consumer desire and the cycle begins anew: innovation, negotiation, valuation.

© Copyright 2002-2017 IMS ExpertServices, All Rights Reserved.

Failure to Comply with Hart-Scott-Rodino Act Just Got More Expensive

FTC Hart-Scott-Rodino AntitrustLast November, President Obama signed into law an amendment to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act (Sec. 701 of Public Law 114-74). The amendment requires federal agencies to adjust the maximum civil penalties for violations of the laws they enforce no later than July 1, 2016.

On June 29, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission revised its Rule 1.98 to reflect the new higher levels for maximum civil penalties. The new maximums will apply to civil penalties assessed by the FTC after August 1, 2016. They include civil penalties for violations that occurred prior to the effective date. (Going forward, the maximums will be adjusted for inflation each January.)

Of particular significance to corporations that acquire, sell, or merge with other businesses, the penalties for violating the premerger reporting and waiting requirements under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act have been increased from $16,000 per day to $40,000 per day, an increase of 150%.

As most businesspersons know, under the HSR Act, the parties to mergers and acquisitions that meet the dollar thresholds of the Act and are not otherwise exempt must file a premerger notification form, pay the appropriate fees, and wait 30 days (or possibly more) prior to closing the transaction. Failure to file the required notification or to observe the mandatory waiting period will subject the parties to civil penalties, which are now significantly higher.

Note that for continuing violations of the HSR Act, each day is a separate violation. As a result, the maximum civil penalty may be multiplied by the number of days for each violation of the applicable statute or order. (For example, a company or individual that is required to report but fails to do so for one year would be facing a fine of up to $14.6 million under the new levels.)

But statutory maximums are not automatically imposed. Before levying a civil fine, the Commission considers various factors in determining whether the maximum should be mitigated. Those factors include:

  1. Harm to the public

  2. Benefit to the violator

  3. Good or bad faith of the violator

  4. The violator’s ability to pay

  5. Deterrence of future violations by this violator and others

  6. Vindication of the FTC’s authority

Why does it happen that a company or individual fails to make the required HSR filing? The FTC reports that it frequently sees two specific scenarios:

  1. Company executives who acquire company voting shares through exercising options or warrants may fail to aggregate the value of such shares with the value of the company shares they already hold and therefore do not realize that they have satisfied the HSR size of transaction threshold test.

  2. Sometimes companies or individuals who have qualified for the “investment-only” exemption in the past may erroneously continue to rely on that exemption even though they have become active investors in the company or their holdings in the company have increased above 10%.

Other recurring scenarios can also trip up acquirers. For example, companies may not realize that patent and other IP licenses are in certain circumstances treated as the acquisition of an asset for HSR Act purposes.

© 2016 Schiff Hardin LLP

Ninth Circuit Rules NCAA Violates Antitrust Law-Strikes Down Proposed Remedy

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco, affirmed in part and reversed in part Judge Claudia Wilken’s August 2014 district court decision that NCAA rules restricting payment to athletes violate antitrust laws.

The Ninth Circuit agreed with Judge Wilken’s conclusion that NCAA rules restricting payment to athletes violated antitrust laws and authorized NCAA schools to provide athletic scholarships that cover the full cost of attendance. However, the Ninth Circuit rejected a key component of Judge Wilken’s decision which authorized the payment of $5,000 per year in deferred compensation for the use of individual athletes’ names, images and likenesses.

The opinion, written on behalf of the panel by Judge Jay Bybee, stated,

“NCAA is not above the antitrust laws, and courts cannot and must not shy away from requiring the NCAA to play by the Sherman Act’s rules….In this case, the NCAA’s rules have been more restrictive than necessary to maintain its tradition of amateurism in support of the college sports market.”

A more detailed analysis of the decision and its potential impact will be posted shortly.

In Affirming a Preliminary Injunction Against Drug Companies, Second Circuit Finds Coercion in Product Hopping Scheme

In an earlier posting, I wrote about the lawsuit filed on December 10, 2014 by the Attorney General for the State of New York, People of the State of New York v. Actavis, PLC and Forest Laboratories, LLC .1  In that action, New York challenges on antitrust grounds plans by the defendant pharmaceutical companies to cease marketing the drug Namenda IR and substitute in the market-place a newer drug, Namenda XR.  Both drugs are used for the treatment of moderate to advanced Alzheimer’s disease.  Namenda IR and Namenda XR are the brand names for the drug memantine, and defendants have a monopoly for memantine in the United States. On May 22, 2015, the Second Circuit issued an Order affirming a preliminary injunction granted by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, enjoining Actavis and Forest Laboratories (“Forest”) from discontinuing the marketing of Namenda IR, and substituting its newer drug Namenda XR.2  The Second Circuit filed an opinion under seal concurrently with the issuance of its Order, allowing the parties to submit proposed redactions by May 26, 2015.  The court of appeals on May 28, 2015 issued a redacted version of its opinion.  At the time of my previous posting on the antitrust suit brought by New York against Actavis and Forest, the Second Circuit had not released it redacted version of its opinion.

In its opinion, the Second Circuit ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, as sought by New York, precluding the defendants from implementing a marketing scheme known as “product hopping.”  This tactic was a means of maintaining the defendants’ monopoly in the memantine market and precluding competition by generic brands of that drug.  Of critical import to the court of appeals was that defendants relied upon consumer coercion, rather than persuasion on the merits of competing generics.  The coercive aspect of defendants’ marketing scheme violated section 2 of the Sherman Act.3  

The Second Circuit’s ruling in People of the State of New York v. Actavis, PLC and Forest Laboratories, LLC affirming the district court’s preliminary injunction is the first appellate decision to specifically opine on the antitrust implications of product hopping in the pharmaceutical industry.


Forest holds a patent for its brand-name drug Namenda IR, with market exclusivity to expire on July 11, 2015.  On that date, Forest will no longer have market exclusivity for memantine.  Actavis and Forest issued several public statements regarding plans to withdraw Namenda IR from the market, ultimately announcing in June 2014 that Namenda IR would be available for sale until the fall of 2014.  Defendants indicated that upon withdraw Namenda IR from the market in the fall of 2014, its newer drug Namenda XR would be available as a substitute for the treatment of moderate to advanced Alzheimer’s disease.  Defendants took steps to notify physicians and caregivers of the discontinuance of Namenda IR and to contemplate switching from Namenda IR to Namenda RX.

Namenda XR has the same therapeutic effect as Namenda IR.  There is a difference between the two drugs regarding time-release.  Namenda IR is the immediate-release version of that drug, whereas Namenda XR is an extended-release version. Thus, consumers would take Namenda IR twice daily; in contrast, Namenda XR would be taken once daily.  Additionally, Namenda IR is in tablet form, and Namenda XR is in capsule form.

There are implications for generic drug competition in the market for memantine that arise from the marketing plans announced by Actavis and Forest.  In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the “Hatch-Waxman Act.”4    That statute provides for dual purposes. On the one hand, Congress allowed a manufacture of a generic drug to use an abbreviated process to obtain approval to market the drug from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).  Provision for an abbreviated process was to encourage price competition from  generic drugs.  The generic drug manufacturer can file an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) provided that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to a previously approved brand-name drug.  This regulatory approach allows the generic manufacturer to rely on scientific data previously submitted for the brand-name drug to seek approval to market the generic drug.  The ANDA process affords generic manufacturers considerable cost savings, and a shorted period of FDA review.  The other purpose under the Hatch-Waxman Act was to incentivize drug innovation.  To do this, Congress provided that the manufacturer of a brand-name drug can obtain an additional extension of up to five years to the patent term of the drug to compensate for regulatory delay when seeking approval from the FDA for the new brand-name drug.5  Additionally, under amendments to the Hatch-Waxman Act by the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997,6 provision was made for six months of non-patent “pediatric exclusivity” for qualifying pediatric research conducted by the drug manufacturer.7

States have drug substitution laws that either mandate or allow the substitution of a generic drug for a prescribed brand-name drug, except where the prescribing physician, or consumer, indicates otherwise. A generic drug that receives approval from the FDA under the ANDA process may be “AB- rated” by the FDA when the generic drug is “therapeutically equivalent” to its brand-name drug counterpart.  A generic drug deemed AB-rated allows a pharmacy, under a state’s substitution laws, to substitute the generic drug for the more expensive brand-name drug.  State substitution laws complement the provisions under the Hatch-Waxman Act which liberalize the drug approval process for generic drugs, to lower drug costs by encouraging greater competition from generic drugs in the market-place.

In the antitrust lawsuit filed by New York against Actavis and Forest, the State Attorney General alleges violations of the Sherman Act8 and state antitrust laws.9  In the action, New York contends that the marketing practice of product hopping that the defendants intend to pursue will have dire consequences for competition from generic drugs for Forest’s Namenda IR that would have occurred upon the expiration of market exclusivity for Namenda IR on July 11, 2015.  This anticompetitive impact will arise, according to New York, as a direct result of defendants’ plans to stop marketing Namenda IR and “force switch” physicians and payors to use Forest’s newer drug Namenda XR prior to loss of market exclusivity for Namenda IR on July 11, 2015.10  New York argues that removal from the market of Namenda IR prior to the loss of market exclusivity for Namenda IR will thwart state substitution laws since generics for the drug Namenda IR will not have been AB- rated for the newer Namenda XR, critical to enable pharmacists to substitute a generic version for the newer drug Namenda XR.  New York contends that defendants’ scheme will thus extend the national monopoly that Forest has for memantine for the term of the patent it has for Namenda XR, to expire in 2029.

In its lawsuit, New York argues that there is no legitimate business justification for the product hopping scheme defendants intend to pursue.  In its amended complaint, the State insists that Manenda XR lacks any meaningful benefits compared with Namenda IR.11  New York accuses the defendants of erecting barriers to entry to thwart competition from makers of the generic form of the drug Namenda IR.  The State contends that steps to force switch the prescribing of Namenda XR would impact negatively on thealready “financially strapped”12 health care system, and on Alzheimer’s patients who “must bear…unwanted costs” and “unnecessary changes to their medical routine.”13

The Second Circuit’s Analysis            

On appeal, the Second Circuit ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, enjoining Actavis and Forest from discontinuing the marketing of Namenda IR.  Applying a heightened standard under the law in the Second Circuit for review of a preliminary injunction, the court of appeals concluded that New York demonstrated a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits” of its monopolization and attempted monopolization claims under section 2 of the Sherman Act, and has made “a strong showing” that defendants’ conduct “would cause irreparable harm to competition” in the memantine drug market and to consumers.14

The Second Circuit wrote that monopoly power does not, in and of itself, raise an antitrust concern.  To establish a violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, it must be proved that the defendant not only possessed monopoly power in the relevant market, but that it “willfully acquired or maintained that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.”15  The court of appeals recognized that defendants’ patent on Namenda IR grant them a legal monopoly in the national memantine drug market until July 11, 2015.  Thus, the Second Circuit explained that the issue is whether defendants “willfully sought to maintain or attempted to maintain” that monopoly in violation of section 2.  Citing United States v. Microsoft Corp.16 the court of appeals embraced a rule-of-reason test to determine when a product change violates section 2.  It wrote that generally, courts question assertions that competition is harmed by a dominant firm’s product design changes.  Such design changes can benefit consumers and represent innovation and efficiency. Thus, the court explained that, to be anticompetitive, a dominant firm’s design changes are those that impede competition through means “other than competition on the merits.”17  Relying  on its analysis in Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.,18 the Second Circuit reasoned that product withdrawal or product improvement, standing alone, is not anticompetitive.  The court wrote that under Berkey Photo, when a monopolist “combines product withdrawal with some other conduct,” such that consumers are “coerced” rather than persuaded based on the merits, and to “impede competition,” such actions are anticompetitive.19  The court of appeals concluded that defendants’ plan to force switch Alzheimer’s patients from taking Namenda IR to the newer drug Namenda XR (for which generic Namenda is not therapeutically equivalent) would impede generic competition by thwarting state substitution laws for generics.  Defendants’ force switch scheme “crosses the line from persuasion to coercion and is anticompetitive.”20  

The Second Circuit agreed with the district court’s view that the pharmaceutical market is unique, and the critical role that state substitution laws play in facilitating price competition between brand-name drugs and generics.  Competition through state substitution laws “is the only cost-efficient means” for generic drugs to compete.21  The court of appeals explained that defendant’s plan to force patients to switch to Namenda XR would preclude generic substitution because generic Namenda IR is not AB-rated to Namenda XR.  The Second Circuit viewed defendants’ plan to force switch consumers to Namenda XR as a practice not based on competition on the merits.  As such, defendants’ scheme was exclusionary, with the anticompetitive “effect of significantly reducing usage of rivals’ products and hence protecting its own monopoly,”22 in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act.  The court of appeals took note of the record before the lower court indicating the defendants’ own predictions on the effect of its plan to force switch consumers.  Such a scheme would convert, in defendants’ judgment, 80-100 of Namenda IR patients to Namenda XR prior to entry into the market by generic Namenda IR.  Thus, there would be virtually no meaningful market in which generics could compete based on price for Namenda IR.23  The court of appeals also took note of defendants’ own views regarding the very low prospects that consumers would revert back to the generic version of Namenda IR once they were forced to switch to Namenda XR and manufacturers were free to sell the generic version of Namenda IR.24

The Second Circuit rejected the defendants’ procompetitive justifications for its marketing scheme as pretextual.  Relying on the record before the lower court, the court of appeals wrote that there is ample evidence indicating that defendants’ stated intent was to erect barriers to thwart generic competition, and maintain a monopoly in the memantine market.  Defendants argued that their conduct is procompetitive since introducing a new product, like Namenda XR, enhances competition and encouraging product innovation.  The Second Circuit disagreed.  It wrote that while introducing Namenda XR may, standing alone, be procompetitive, there is no competitive justification for withdrawing Namenda IR.25

The Second Circuit also concluded that New York made a strong showing “that competition and consumers will suffer irreparable harm” in the absence of the preliminary injunction awarded by the district court.26

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and cannot be attributed to the Office of the Inspector General for the District of Columbia Government.

1  Amended Complaint, Case No. 14-CV-7473 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 10, 2014).

2 Case No. 14-4624 (2nd Cir. May 22, 2015)

3 15 U.S.C. § 2.  

4 Pub. L. No. 98-417, codified at: 21 U.S.C. § 355, 21 U.S.C. § 2201, and 35 U.S.C. §§ 156, 271, 282.

5 35 U.S.C. § 156.  

6 Pub. L. No. 105-115.

7 35 U.S.C. § 156; 21 U.S.C. § 355a.   

8 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2.  

9   New York State General Business Law §§ 340-47; New York State Executive Law § 63(12).      

10 The district court’s preliminary injunction bars defendants from withdrawing Namenda IR until 30 days after July 11, 2015, the date when generic memantine will first be available in the market.    

11 Amended complaint, par. 78.  

12 Id. at par. 6.  

13 Id. at par. 100.  

14 Slip op. at 28.  

15 Id. at 29, quoting Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 407 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).    

16 253 F.3d 34, 58-60 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (en banc).  

17 Slip op. at 32.  

18 603 F.2d 263 (2nd Cir. 1979).  

19 Slip op. at 35-36.  

20 Id. at 37.  

21 Id. at 40-41. 

22 Id. at 40.                  

23 Id. at 39-40.  

24 Id. at 41-42.   

25 Slip op. at 47-49.  

26 Id. at 54.

Auto Insurers Again Seek Dismissal of In RE Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litigation

In early March, the auto insurer defendants in the In re Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litigation renewed their motions seeking the dismissal of plaintiffs’ action, this time directed at plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. The insurer defendants urged the Court to dismiss the action with prejudice, maintaining that, despite three attempts, the plaintiff auto body shops have still failed to include sufficient facts to make their claim of conspiracy plausible.

The action, commenced well over a year ago as A&E Auto Body v. 21st Century Centennial Insurance Co. and subsequently transformed into a multidistrict litigation proceeding (In re Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litigation, MDL 2557) after similar cases were filed in a multitude of states, centers upon a claim that many of the leading auto insurers in the country conspired to reduce rates for the repair of damaged vehicles and to steer insureds away from auto repair shops that refused to accept lower reimbursement rates for their services. The cases were consolidated before Judge Gregory Presnell (M.D. Fla.) in late 2014, and in early 2015 Judge Presnell dismissed plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to plead an antitrust conspiracy with the degree of specificity required under Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

In February, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, seeking to cure the deficiencies in the complaint identified in Judge Presnell’s prior rulings. In March, the defendants filed several new motions to dismiss the action. One group of defendants (including State Farm, Allstate, Progressive and 21st Century) maintained that the plaintiffs’ allegations still failed to include sufficient factual support to plead an actionable antitrust conspiracy, which they described as the “crucial question” in the case. Claiming that the plaintiffs’ allegations demonstrated nothing more than “parallel conduct” towards the plaintiffs, not agreement, these defendants renewed their request to have the action dismissed as to them. Another group of defendants (which includes Hartford, Nationwide and Zurich American) went a step further, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to allege any material facts specifically about them, despite Judge Presnell’s express instruction in his prior dismissal order in January (without prejudice, on that occasion) that plaintiffs provide detailed allegations about each defendant’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy. Finally, one defendant (Old Republic) filed a separate motion not only seeking dismissal, but sanctions as well, based on the claim that the plaintiffs had been put on notice by the Court that particularized allegations as to each defendant’s alleged conduct was required, and that plaintiffs’ failure to include any additional factual support for their claims against Old Republic was sanctionable conduct.

In late March, the plaintiffs filed an “omnibus” response to all of the defendants’ motions, arguing that dismissal of the case at this juncture was not warranted. Asserting that “the Second Amended Complaint complies in every respect with the Court’s [January] Order,” the plaintiffs urged the Court to permit them to proceed into discovery. Specifically, the plaintiffs maintained that the parallel conduct alleged in the Second Amended Complaint constitutes “circumstantial evidence of conspiracy” and that the Supreme Court has never expressly held how many “plus factors” supporting a claim of conspiracy are required to satisfy a plaintiff’s pleading obligations. Plaintiffs contended, therefore, that they are not required to “set out specific facts establishing the time, place or persons involved in the conspiracy” nor are they required to allege an “express agreement.” Instead, they maintained, their allegations of parallel conduct, coupled with their allegations about the defendants’ collective market share, motive to conspire and opportunity to do so are more than sufficient to meet their pleading obligations.

In early April, the auto insurers filed reply briefs responding to the plaintiffs’ contentions. Perhaps most significantly, those defendants that had argued that the Second Amended Complaint still failed to contain any significant allegations about their specific conduct noted that the plaintiffs’ response had failed to refute that assertion in any meaningful way (“Rather than simply admit that they failed to allege anything against the moving defendants under the Sherman Act…plaintiffs point to allegations against the other defendants….” emphasis in original).

The entire set of motions are now before Judge Presnell for consideration, with the defendants urging the Court to take a “three strikes, you’re out” approach to the plaintiffs’ case. Whether Judge Presnell will adopt defendants’ baseball analogy and dismiss the case, with prejudice, as to all or some of the defendants remains to be seen. What is certain is that this matter will continue to be a significant focus of attention for the entire auto insurance industry over the coming months. Stay tuned.

Authored by James M. Burns of Dickinson Wright PLLC

© Copyright 2015 Dickinson Wright PLLC

March (Appellate) Madness re: O'Bannon NCAA Antitrust Case

Womble Carlyle Sandridge Rice, PLLC

It has been a few months since we updated on the O’Bannon antitrustcase, where federal judge Claudia Wilken ruled last summer that theNCAA’s amateurism rules violated federal antitrust laws. But this week, as the rest of the country filled out their brackets and geared up for the start of the NCAA tournament, the NCAA was getting ready for another battle – in the Ninth Circuit.  On Tuesday, the appeals court heard oral argument from both the NCAA and plaintiffs’ counsel, as the parties debated the lower court’s decision, which allowed limited compensation for the use of athletes’ name, image, and likenesses.

Central to the parties’ argument was the interpretation of NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, a 1984 case regarding football television rights. While the NCAA lost that case, one statement in that case has become central to the NCAA’s current “amateurism” defense:  “To preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid.”  In Tuesday’s arguments, some of the judges seemed skeptical of the NCAA’s shifting definition of “pay,” they were also concerned about opening the door to “pay for play.”

We can expect a ruling in the upcoming months, though this is unlikely to be the final appeal in the case.