Category: Antitrust & Trade Regulation

FTC Takes First Actions Under New Made in USA Labeling Rule, Fining Battery Companies for Violations

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently cracked down on Lithionics Battery, LLC, and Lions Not Sheep Products, LLC, for violating the FTC’s Made in USA Labeling Rule. These are some of the first enforcement actions after the FTC codified its longstanding informal Made in USA guidance, which makes it easier for the FTC to seek damages and levy fines. Under the proposed settlement, Lithionics will pay a $100,000 fine for falsely labeling batteries as US-made, while Lions Not Sheep will be required to pay $211,335 for falsely labeling clothing as US-made.

The Made in USA Labeling Rule

Under the Made in USA Labeling Rule, marketers suspected of making unqualified Made in USA claims must prove that their products:

  1. are all or virtually all made in the US;
  2. that all significant processing occurred in the US; and
  3. that the final assembly occurred in the US.

Although Congress enacted legislation authorizing the FTC to seek relief for Made in USA fraud almost thirty years ago, the FTC long remained silent on enforcement due to a general consensus that this specific type of fraud should not be penalized. The 2021 Made in USA Labeling Rule alters this perspective, codifying the FTC’s enforcement policy. With the Commission now being allowed to levy fines, seek damages, penalties, and/or redress on marketers who deceptively and fraudulently represent that their products are made in the US, the FTC has stepped up its enforcement efforts.

The FTC’s Recent Allegations with Lithionics and Lions Not Sheep

Lithionics

Lithionics is a Florida-based company best known for its battery products. The company has become a regular brand throughout American households. It designs and sells products for vehicles, as well as amusement parks.

The FTC alleged that Lithionics has been in violation of the Made in USA Labeling Rule since at least 2018 by intentionally misrepresenting the origin of Lithionics products. According to the Complaint, Lithionics’ products are labeled “Proudly Designed and Built in the USA” and feature an American flag. The claims were also featured across company websites, social media platforms, videos, and printed catalogs. However, according to the FTC, “all Lithionics battery and battery module products contain imported lithium ion cells” and “other significant imported components,” which, if true, would render Lithionics’ Made in USA claims false or unsubstantiated under the Made in USA Labeling Rule.”

Under the proposed order, Lithionics and its owner must stop making these claims unless they can prove their statements are true. As noted above, the company must also pay $100,000 for the alleged activity.

Lions Not Sheep

Lions Not Sheep is a self-proclaimed lifestyle brand that sells sweatshirts, hats, and shirts online.

In its allegations against Lions Not Sheep, the FTC alleged that the company has violated the Made in USA Labeling Rule since May 2021. According to the Complaint, the company intentionally removed tags disclosing that items were made in a foreign country. Instead of leaving the original tags, the FTC alleged that the company replaced them with Made in USA tags despite the products being “wholly imported with limited finishing work performed in the United States.” To make matters worse, the FTC found a video posted on the internet featuring the company’s owner blatantly claiming he could hide the fact that his shirts were made in China.

In addition to charging the company with violating the Made in the USA Labeling Rule, the FTC charged the company with violating mandatory country-of-origin labeling rules, which require all products covered by the Textile Act to include labels disclosing the manufacturer or marketer name and country where the product was manufactured. The company will be prohibited from making these claims and forced to pay $211,335.

Primary Takeaway

With the FTC now levying significant fines under the new Made in USA rule, the potential cost of non-compliance has also significantly increased. Companies should provide notice to their marketing teams and carefully review any existing claims to ensure that Made in USA claims are adequately substantiated and that marketing materials are not conveying unintended implied claims.

Article By Anthony V. Lupo, Dan Jasnow, and Destiny Planter of ArentFox Schiff LLP

For more antitrust legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 ArentFox Schiff LLP

States Target Infant Formula Price Gouging

There has been a nationwide shortage of infant formula following a recall and temporary closure of a major infant formula manufacturing facility in February 2022. This facility supplied as much as 40% of the nation’s infant formula. In the wake of these events, state attorneys general are on the lookout for unlawful price gouging of infant formula. Sellers of infant formula should make sure that they do not inadvertently run afoul of state price gouging restrictions.

State price gouging laws prohibit price increases above certain thresholds during a period of emergency. Several state governments have recently issued declarations or proclamations that trigger price increase limitations for infant formula, including in California (CA Exec. Order N-10-22, 6/7/2022), Oregon (OR Exec. Procl., 5/13/2022), Colorado (CO Exec. Order D-2022-021, 5/25/2022), New Jersey (NJ Exec. Order No. 296, 5/17/2022), and Kentucky (KY Exec. Order 2022-321, 6/9/2022). Each of these states has a different price gouging restriction. For instance, infant formula sold in California cannot exceed the February 17, 2022 price by more than 10% except in certain limited circumstances. Other states may have a different price increase threshold or a different benchmark date. Multi-state sellers must take care to comply with the restrictions in each state.

Several states, such as Colorado and Nevada, enacted new price gouging laws in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-730; NRS § 598.09235. Enforcers have not had much experience enforcing these statutes, which may mean greater uncertainty for sellers in those states.

Most, but not all states have a price gouging law. In states that do not have a price gouging law, attorneys general will often seek to enforce their state’s unfair or deceptive trade practices act against reports of price gouging. For example, the attorney general of New Mexico, a state without a price gouging law, issued a press release on May 31, 2022 announcing that he is investigating complaints regarding infant formula price gouging. Similar to the COVID-19 pandemic, the infant formula shortage is triggering a variety of different price gouging restrictions in different states at the same time. Navigating the differences from state-to-state can be challenging, particularly in light of the new laws and amended laws that have been recently enacted. Sellers should review their normal pricing practices and make necessary changes to avoid inadvertently running afoul of the restrictions in a particular state.

Article By Leo Caseria and Thomas L. Tyson of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more antitrust and trade regulation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Inflation Woes: Four Key Ways for Companies to Address Inflation in the Supply Chain

The U.S. economy is grappling with the highest inflation in decades, with extensive inflation in the supply chain affecting companies worldwide. Supply chain disruptions undoubtedly have contributed to rising inflation, as extensive delays and skyrocketing costs continue to plague the industry.

In March 2022, the consumer-price index (or CPI) — a measure of the prices consumers pay for products — rose at an annual rate of 8.5%, which is the highest increase in 47 years.1 Meanwhile, the producer-price index (or PPI) — a measure of inflation meant to gauge the impact on suppliers — similarly rose significantly at an annual rate of 11.2%.2 Finally, the employer cost index (or ECI) demonstrates that, from March 2021 to March 2022, total compensation rose 4.5%, wages and salaries rose 4.7%, and benefit costs rose 4.1%.3

Because inflation increases the prices of goods or services, negotiations about who bears that risk in business partner relationships and the consequences of that risk allocation will have significantly greater financial impacts than we have seen in recent memory. As a result, ensuring your business teams are well versed on the impacts of and means of mitigating inflation in new contracts has a direct impact on your bottom line.

In this article, we provide ways for companies in the supply chain to address high inflation and alleviate associated pressures, including (1) how to revisit and use existing agreement provisions to address inflation risk, (2) approaches to negotiating new agreements and amendments to existing agreements, (3) approaches to limit inflationary exposure, and (4) strategies for cost reduction.

Figure 1:

Percent Change in CPI March 2021 versus March 2022

CPI March Chart

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Consumer Price Index – March 2022, issued April 12, 2022

Four Key Ways to Mitigate the Effects of Increasing Inflation in the Supply Chain

1. Revisit and Use Provisions in Existing Agreements

Companies faced with rising costs must review their supply agreements to determine if they already contain mechanisms the company can use to address inflation. On the buy side, companies should look in their agreements for terms relating to fixed prices. On the sell side, companies should investigate ways to pass increased costs on to customers. Most supply contracts contain a variety of provisions that may assist in combatting inflationary pressures.

(a) Pricing Provisions

From a seller’s perspective, a contract may include index-based price escalation provisions, which tie contract prices to one or more indices. The underlying indices may be (i) broad economic indices such as the PPI or “market basket” indices tied to all items and all urban consumers, (ii) targeted indices such as ECI for a specific location, or (iii) tied to the cost of a specific commodity used in the underlying product. Contracts will sometimes incorporate several commodity indices based on the percentage those commodities are used in the product that is the subject of the agreement, in order to accurately reflect the costs associated with producing the good.

Allocations under these pricing provisions vary depending on negotiation power. They could put all of the risk on one party, share the risk equally, or share the risk according to particular percentages. The latter two options represent ways to avoid a “win/lose” approach.

Sellers will want to see whether their agreements allow for periodic negotiations for updated prices and take advantage of those opportunities. A buyer, meanwhile, may look for provisions that allow it the flexibility to limit the quantities ordered, enabling it to reduce costs as necessary or to seek a more cost efficient alternative. A buyer also will want to determine if the contract prohibits the seller from changing prices.

Regardless of the existing provisions, the real impact of inflation is likely to trigger commercial discussions to address rising costs; this is true both for hard goods supply agreements and indirect services agreements with longer terms such as outsourcing and managed services relationships.

(b) Force Majeure as a Mechanism to Adjust Price?

Outside of pricing provisions such as the above, however, a party may look to other contract provisions, such as force majeure, to see if its performance under the contract could be excused; increased costs alone are not enough to constitute a force majeure event. In order for a force majeure to arguably apply, the increase in costs must be caused by an event that itself is a qualifying force majeure event under the terms of the applicable contract (which may include events like a labor strike or pandemic).

Force majeure provisions are intended to excuse performance under a contract but not to act as a pricing adjustment mechanism. However, force majeure and its extra-contractual cousin, commercial impracticability, can be used as tools to bring the parties to the negotiating table where events beyond either party’s reasonable control are impacting the ability to produce and deliver products.

2. Negotiate Amendments to Existing Agreements

To the extent sellers have fixed-price contracts with their customers, sellers should consider negotiating with such customers to adjust these contracts in order to keep the prices they charge their customers in line with their input costs. When entering these discussions, companies that wish to implement a price adjustment, or eliminate fixed pricing entirely, should consider meaningful ways to incentivize their customers to agree to such changes. Would the customer be willing to agree to a price adjustment in order extend the agreement or adjust the quantity? Any items that maintain the relationship between the parties while also allocating cost increases in an equitable way should be considered.

Conversely, buyers faced with price-increase requests should carefully consider their options:

  • First, a customer receiving a price-adjustment request should confirm the request is actually tied to inflation and not just an attempt by a supplier to increase its bottom line. Seek detailed calculations supporting the price adjustments, and require suppliers to demonstrate how much their costs have increased above expectations.
  • Second, customers should consider what items they would like to request in return for accepting a given price-adjustment request, such as whether they would like to adjust their quantity or timing of delivery.
  • Third, a customer faced with a price increase request should consider whether the request should include the opportunity for the customer to obtain pricedowns in the future, in the event there are changes in the pricing environment.

3. Pricing Tied to Indexing and Other Ways to Limit Future Inflationary Exposure when Drafting New Agreements

When drafting new agreements, companies should consider how best to mitigate the effects of inflation.

For nearly 40 years, we have enjoyed relatively low and steady levels of inflation, which explains why existing agreements may not adequately address the allocation of significant and unexpected economic change.

Many of those at the upper echelons of leadership today have never dealt with a high inflationary environment. To put it in perspective, the CEO of Walmart, the No. 1 company on the Fortune 500 list for 2021, was 19 years old when inflation was last a newsworthy topic.

In the future, however, we expect far fewer agreements to have long-term fixed prices, as sellers negotiating agreements will want to incorporate a variety of strategies that allow for pricing flexibility and avoid longstanding, fixed prices. One such strategy is tying prices to an index. As discussed above, this could be a general index such as the CPI or PPI or be much more specific depending on the item sold. There are numerous indices for various products and commodities that parties may use to reflect accurately the costs of producing the goods that are the subject of their agreement. Parties may consider incorporating a mechanism for revisiting these provisions, especially in the event that inflation slows. Caps on inflation risk also may be incorporated as a backstop.

If not tying prices to an index, selling parties will want to shorten the term of their agreements or require the parties to renegotiate prices at set points throughout the duration of their agreements. Alternatively, parties may consider price increases of a certain percentage that are automatically implemented periodically. The seller may even want to leave the pricing open and establish pricing at the time the order is placed.

On the other hand, customers will want to incorporate provisions that cause the supplier to bear the inflationary risk. Principally, this means locking in prices for as long of a period as the seller will agree to and ensuring prices are fixed upon the issuance of purchase orders.

If and when sellers push back on extended fixed-pricing provisions, there are a variety of methods parties may use to meet in the middle:

  • Pricing arrangements that are tied to one or more indices may be capped to a certain percentage, ensuring the customer will know its upward exposure.
  • Include thresholds of index movement such that the price remains static unless and until the percentage threshold is exceeded.
  • Allocate increased cost exposure so a certain percentage range of index movement is allocated to one party and then the next percentage range is allocated to the other party. Parties then may share any exposure above those ranges.
  • Additionally, index-based pricing can be clarified to include both upward and downward movement, ensuring that customers, while risking inflationary costs, may also receive the benefits of deflationary environments.

4. Think Strategically to Reduce Costs

Aside from considering purely contractual methods to combat inflation, companies should think strategically about ways to reduce costs more efficiently.

  • Streamlining. In order to pursue this strategy, companies need to determine which areas are driving increased spending and consider ways those areas may be managed differently. For example, companies may consider whether there are different inputs that can be used to lower costs or processes that may be streamlined. Companies can review their inventory management, labor inputs, and other areas to determine where cost cutting may be an option without sacrificing product or service quality. This streamlining might include ending product lines with lower levels of profitability.
  • Technology & Innovation. In addition, with labor constituting such a high percentage of the cost increases companies are experiencing, a company may want to double down on technology and innovation that reduces headcount. Or, as prices rise, a company may pursue other pricing models. For example, a heavy equipment manufacturer may opt for a pay-per-use model in lieu of the traditional sale model.
  • Diversification of the Supply Chain. Another method companies may use is diversifying their supply chains, ensuring they provide the flexibility and sustainability needed to weather turbulent periods. Though adding links to supply chains will not lower costs in the near term, it can help ensure a business continues to function smoothly even in the event of price shocks, material shortages, or other disruptions.

The stressors driving inflation are unlikely to be relieved any time soon. Companies should use every resource available to leverage their current contracts and negotiate new terms to address inflation’s serious repercussions on their bottom line.

FOOTNOTES

1 How High Is Inflation and What Causes It? What to Know, Wall Street Journal (April 12, 2022).

2 Supplier Prices Rose Sharply in March, Keeping Upward Pressure on U.S. Inflation, Wall Street Journal (April 13, 2022).

3  Employment Cost Index – March 2022, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (April 29, 2022).

Article By Vanessa L. Miller, Kathleen E. Wegrzyn, Leah R. Imbrogno, James R. Kalyvas, and Austin R. Kissinger of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more financial institutions and banking news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

Constitutionality of FTC’s Structure and Procedures Under SCOTUS Review

Both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) have authority to enforce Section 7 of the Clayton Act by investigating and challenging mergers where the effect of such transaction “may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.”

However, the enforcement paths of these two federal agencies differ markedly. DOJ pursues all aspects of its enforcement actions in the federal court system. The FTC, on the other hand, only uses the federal district courts to seek injunctive relief, but otherwise follows its own internal administrative process that combines the investigatory, prosecutorial, adjudicative, and appellate functions within a single agency.

Whether a transaction is subjected to DOJ or FTC review is determined by a “clearance” process with no public visibility. To many, including entities in the health care industry—and, in particular, parties to hospital mergers that are now routinely “cleared” to the FTC (exemplified by two recently filed enforcement actions against hospitals in New Jersey and Utah)—this process appears to be arbitrary. It is also particularly daunting because the FTC has not lost an administrative action in over a quarter-century. Because of the one-sided nature and duration of these administrative proceedings, most enforcement actions brought against merging hospitals rise or fall at the injunctive relief stage. This process also appears to embolden the FTC into taking unprecedented actions, including the pursuit of enforcement remedies against parties to abandoned transactions.

However, this may soon change. The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear a case that raises a forceful constitutional challenge to the FTC’s structure and procedures. The Supreme Court recently agreed to combine the briefing schedule of this case with a similar case that successfully challenged the constitutionality of the administrative process of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The outcome of these cases may fundamentally alter the FTC’s enforcement process.

Article By E. John Steren and Patricia M. Wagner of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more antitrust and trade regulation news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Is Coming… Are You Ready? CBP Issues Hints at the Wave of Enforcement To Come

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued some guidance relating to its enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) prior to June 21, 2022, the effective date of the rebuttable presumption.

What to Know

  • US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued some guidance relating to its enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) prior to June 21, 2022, the effective date of the rebuttable presumption.
  • The new guidance imposes tighter timelines and a higher burden of evidence on importers to rebut the presumption that merchandise was produced with forced labor. If CBP does not make a decision within specific timeframes, goods will automatically be deemed excluded.
  • CBP is expected to issue additional technical guidance at the end of May or early June. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is also expected to issue guidance closer to June 21, 2022.
  • CBP is scheduled to host informational webinars detailing their UFLPA guidance in the coming weeks.

What’s New: Tighter Timelines  

While US importers were eagerly anticipating the issuance of technical guidance regarding implementation of the UFLPA from CBP last week, which is now expected this week, CBP did post a new guidance document summarizing the UFLPA and forced labor Withhold Release Orders (WRO) enforcement mechanisms. Specifically, CBP’s authority to detain merchandise under the UFLPA will be pursuant to 19 CFR § 151.16, which provides for a much different timeline for the detention of merchandise than the WRO process. Under this process, if Customs does not make a timely decision regarding admissibility, goods are automatically excluded.

UFLPA Timeline Enforcement under 19 CFR § 151.16

Number of Days

Actions
5 Days from Presentation for Examination

CBP must decide whether to release or detail merchandise

  • If the merchandise is not released, it is detained
5 Days after Decision to Release or Detain

CBP will issue a notice to importer advising them of:

  • The initiation of detention
  • Date merchandise examined
  • Reason for detention
  • Anticipated length of detention
  • Nature of tests and inquiries to be conducted
  • Information to accelerate disposition
  Upon written request, CBP must provide importer with testing procedures, methodologies used, and testing results
Within 30 Days of Examination

CBP will make a final determination as to the admissibility of merchandise

  • If CBP does not make a determination within the 30-day period, the merchandise will be deemed excluded
  • This means any submission to rebut the presumption should be made before this 30 day period
Within 180 Days of CBP Determination/Exclusion Importers may protest CBP’s final determination
Within 30 Days After Protest Submitted The protest is deemed denied if CBP does not grant or deny the protest within 30 days
Within 180 Days after the Date the Protest is Denied

The importer may commence a court action contesting the denied protest (28 U.S.C. § 1581(a))

  • In a court action, CBP must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an admissibility decision has been reached for good cause
  • Customs can decide to grant the protest after the deemed denial but before a court case is filed

This is a much shorter timeline than the WRO process. Importantly, a company contesting CBP’s detention of merchandise pursuant to the UFLPA would be required to submit documentation to rebut the presumption within the 30-day period that CBP is assessing admissibility, whereas the WRO process permits 90 days. Like the WRO process, the importer may also file a protest 180 days after CBP makes its final determination regarding the exclusion.

CBP Listening Session: A Higher Burden of Evidence 

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022, CBP provided information regarding the publication of guidance and enforcement of the UFLPA:

  • CBP Publication of Guidance. CBP’s guidance regarding its enforcement of the rebuttable presumption and the UFLPA is scheduled to be published the week of May 30.
  • DHS Publication of Guidance. DHS guidance will be published on or about June 21, 2022, which will include information relating to supply chain due diligence, importer guidance, and the entity lists.
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence Required to Rebut the Presumption that Merchandise was Produced with Forced Labor. It was confirmed that the UFLPA will have a much higher burden of evidence required to rebut the presumption that merchandise was produced with forced labor than that of a WRO. Any exception to the rebuttable presumption must be reported to Congress, and thus the level of evidence that will be required to overcome the rebuttable presumption is very high. As a practical matter, it appears that very few detained entries will be released. Importers are advised to start conducting due diligence on supply chains in order to ensure that they will be able to obtain documentation should merchandise be detained once the rebuttable presumption goes into effect. Importantly, products that are subject to an existing WRO from Xinjiang will now be enforced under the UFLPA process instead of the WRO process.
  • Evidence Required if Merchandise is Detained. The forthcoming guidance will set forth information regarding how an importer may meet the exception to the rebuttable presumption and to demonstrate that merchandise was not produced with forced labor, by meeting the following three criteria:
    • Demonstrate compliance with the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force/DHS strategy;
    • Demonstrate compliance with CBP’s guidance and any inquiries that CBP raises; and
    • Provide clear and convincing evidence that the supply chain in question is free of forced labor.
  • Binding Rulings. Importers may apply for a binding ruling to confirm or request an exception to the rebuttable presumption under the UFLPA. Although CBP is still finalizing the process for importers to apply for a binding ruling, importers would be required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that merchandise is not produced with forced labor. If the ruling is granted, it applies to future shipments for the specific supply chain in question.
  • Known Importer Letters and Detention Notices. Going forward, CBP will not issue Known Importer letters, and CBP will notify importers that merchandise is subject to the UFLPA through the issuance of detention notices.
  • Detention of Merchandise. If goods are detained by CBP because they are suspected of having a nexus to Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), importers may either provide clear and convincing evidence that merchandise was not produced with forced labor or export the products. If detained products that fall under the UFLPA are comingled with other products that are not subject to the UFLPA, importers may request the segregation of the merchandise that is not subject to the UFLPA.
  • Chain of CBP Review for Importer Submissions Relating to Detained Merchandise. Chain of CBP review for the request of an exception to the rebuttable presumption has not been finalized yet. However, importers will be required to submit evidence that rebuts the presumption that merchandise was produced with forced labor to the applicable CBP Port Director. For the moment, the CBP Commissioner is the final individual who can ultimately make an exception to the rebuttable presumption, but CBP is deciding if it will delegate this responsibility to any additional persons.

Upcoming CBP Informational Webinars

CBP will be holding three webinar sessions, all covering the same material, to discuss and review its guidance relating to the UFLPA. The dates of the webinars and the registration links are listed below.

Article By Angela M. Santos, Christine E. Hintze, and Jodi Tai of ArentFox Schiff LLP

For more immigration legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 ArentFox Schiff LLP

Antitrust Enforcers’ “Second Listening” Forum On Merger Reform Highlights Issues In The Healthcare Industry

In March of this year the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) jointly announced a series of “listening forums” that would help gather real world input from participants in key industry segments on possible reforms to the antitrust regulations pertaining to mergers and acquisitions.1 Co-led by DOJ Deputy Assistant Attorney General (“DAAG”) Doha Mekke and FTC Chairperson Lina Khan, the second of the four announced forums, focusing on healthcare, was held on April 14, 2022. 2  In addition to DAAG Mekki and Chairperson Khan, the program included eight panelists that provided perspectives from nurses, doctors, patients, pharmacists and small businesses. 3

DAAG Mekki started off the discussion by reaffirming the antitrust enforcement agencies’ collective commitment that “healthcare markets remain competitive” because it “is essential to our livelihood or the livelihood of the nation.” Mekki referenced ongoing work by the agencies in the healthcare field, including recent DOJ enforcement actions. 4

The healthcare panelists highlighted several ongoing issues in the industry, such as the adverse impact of care due to post-merger hospital staff downsizing that was tied to merger-specific efficiencies, reduced options to tertiary care, higher healthcare costs for patients, and unfair competition in the pharmaceutical and small business markets, and other impacts in the research and labor markets.

Chairperson Khan indicated that the comments resonated with the concerns that the FTC had in the hospital, pharmacy benefits management, and pharmacy industries. Ms. Khan also suggested a renewed interest in examining the potential anticompetitive effects of vertical integration in addition to horizontal mergers and acquisitions, which is consistent with the FTC’s position when it indicated that it wanted to revisit this issue while withdrawing the Vertical Merger Guidelines in 2021. Khan also reaffirmed the importance of examining anticompetitive effects in the labor market. All of these issues, according to Khan, are important in assessing how the antitrust laws can be used to improve the quality of healthcare for patients.

The forum ended with some of the more than two hundred public comments, most of which echoed similar concerns raised by the panelists in addition to concerns such as disparities in hospital-physician group contracting situations and racial disparities in access to healthcare as a result of healthcare system mergers.

Once again, all signs point toward an unprecedented time in antitrust enforcement in the healthcare industry. Accordingly, it is important that healthcare companies revisit, revise, and implement best practices with regard to their respective antitrust compliance programs. A proactive, as opposed to a reactive, approach would provide companies the best risk management strategy. It is also important to engage antitrust counsel early in potential transactions to assess how the antitrust agencies may view the deal.

The DOJ and FTC Listening Forums continue with Media and Entertainment, which was held on April 27, 2022, and the final one on Technology, which will be held on May 12, 2022. Click here to download the alert. 

FOOTNOTES

1    “Forums to focus on markets commonly impacted by mergers: food and agriculture, health care, media and entertainment, and technology,” March 17, 2022, available at: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/03/ftc-justice-department-launch-listening-forums-firsthand-effects-mergers-acquisitions

2   See “Antitrust Enforcers’ First ‘Listening Forum’ On Merger Reform Highlights Ongoing Concerns in the Food and Agriculture Industry” May 9, 2022, available at: https://www.polsinelli.com/intelligence/antitrust-forum-highlights-concerns-in-food-and-ag

3 Full transcript of forum available at: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/FTC-DOJ-Listening-Forum-%20Health-Care-Transcript.pdf. It should be noted that Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter did make an appearance at the end of the session, reiterating the importance of this forum.

4    See “DOJ Faces Two Strikeouts in First Health Care Wage-Fixing and ‘No Poach’ Prosecutions,” April 20, 2022, available at: https://www.polsinelli.com/intelligence/doj-faces-two-strikeouts-in-first-health-care

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California
Article By Arindam Kar with Polsinelli PC.
For more articles about antitrust law, visit the NLR Antitrust law section.

Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certification in Big Tuna Antitrust Case

Court delivers a necessary course correction in the law of class certification.

There was reason for optimism in August 2021, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted rehearing en banc of a 2-1 decision that would have made it more difficult for antitrust claimants to secure class certification. The three-judge panel in Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 993 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2021) had determined that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) required a district court to find that no more than a de minimis number of class members are uninjured before a class may be certified. Having announced this de minimis rule in its opinion, the court then took the unusual step of inviting the parties to argue whether the full court should rehear the issue en banc.

As we wrote last year when en banc rehearing was granted, with its de minimis rule, “the panel really jumped the median strip.” We argued that the rule conflated the question of whether issues common to the class predominate over issues unique to individual class members with the question of how the class is defined and that the Ninth Circuit’s new and unrealistic de minimis requirement erected an unnecessary procedural hurdle to class certification. Other commentators and amici argued that requiring proof that all but a de minimis number of class members are injured requires a determination on the merits, impermissible at the class certification stage.

In welcome news for claimants and attorneys who bring antitrust class actions, the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc decided against the de minimis rule, for all of the foregoing reasons, in Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, No. 19-56514, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9455 (9th Cir. Apr. 8, 2022).

In a thorough review of the requirements for class certification under Rule 23, the Ninth Circuit held that the movant’s burden is to prove the prerequisites of Rule 23 by a preponderance of the evidence, bringing the Ninth Circuit in line with the law in the First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits. As for the predominance requirement of a Rule 23(b)(3) class, the court cited In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 311 (3d Cir. 2008) as amended (Jan. 16, 2009), to hold that, when assessing whether a plaintiff has proven that a common question related to a central issue in the claim predominates, a district court is limited to resolving whether the evidence establishes that a common question is capable of class-wide resolution, not whether the evidence in fact establishes that plaintiffs would win at trial.”

In rejecting the de minimis rule, the court began with the notion that class-wide proof is not required for all issues. Thus, the need for individualized assessment of a class member’s damages does not preclude a court from certifying a class. It contradicts this notion to require proof of injury of not more than a de minimis number of class members.

The presence of uninjured class members, the court held, does not defeat predominance. Predominance is defeated only where the class members cannot rely on the same body of common evidence to establish the common issue.

The presence of a large number of uninjured class members, however, could require a district court to consider whether the class definition is “fatally overbroad.” The remedy in that case, the court said, is to “redefine the overbroad class to include only those members who can rely on the same body of common evidence to establish the common issue.” “[T]he problem of a potentially ‘over-inclusive’ class,” the court said, “can and often should be solved by refining the class definition rather than by flatly denying class certification on that basis” (citation and internal quotation omitted).

With that, the Ninth Circuit reversed the three-judge panel and affirmed the certification of the classes by U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino of California’s Southern District*, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the methodology employed—statistical regression analysis and other expert evidence—”was capable of showing that a price-fixing conspiracy caused class-wide antitrust impact.”  [*Judge Sammartino subsequently recused herself and the case was reassigned to Chief Judge Dana Sabraw.]

The 9-2 decision was written by Circuit Judge Sandra S. Ikuta. In a dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Kenneth K. Lee said as much as a third of the class members were unharmed. This is a “victory to plaintiffs” who will now be able to settle the action without having to prove their case trial, he said.

The suit was brought by direct purchasers of tuna products, indirect purchasers of bulk-sized tuna products, and individual end purchasers against the owners of Bumble Bee Foods LLC (currently in Chapter 11), StarKist Co., and Chicken of the Sea—which sell more than 80 percent of the packaged tuna in the United States. The industry has also been investigated by the Department of Justice in recent years, resulting in criminal guilty pleas by industry executives for participating in a price-fixing conspiracy.

Nothing in Rule 23 suggests that the presence of more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members affects whether questions affecting only individual class members predominate.

The now vacated de minimis rule conflates impact with damages and the predominance inquiry with potential overbreadth in the class definition. The Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision is a model of clear thinking and a welcome course correction in the law of class certification.

Article By Dan Mogin and Jonathan Rubin of MoginRubin

For more antitrust legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© MoginRubin LLP

Apple Smartwatch Antitrust Case Survives, Showing ‘Freedom of Design’ is Not Absolute

Judge Cites ‘Associated’ Anticompetitive Conduct Claims

It’s a case that challenges the limits of the “freedom of design” usually enjoyed by companies accused of product design changes alleged to harm competition. Ordinarily, a design change is not the kind of conduct that runs afoul of the antitrust laws, but on March 21, U.S. Judge Jeffrey S. White from the Northern District of California denied Apple Inc.’s motion to dismiss an antitrust case brought against it by AliveCor Inc. The suit alleges that Apple unlawfully maintained its monopoly in the market for heart rate analysis apps by updating WatchOS, the Apple Watch operating system on which AliveCor’s heart rate analysis app runs. (AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 21-cv-03958-JSW, N.D. Calif.).

Heart rate analysis apps analyze the user’s heart rate in real time using a sensor close to the user’s wrist and determine whether the user’s heart rate is normal or irregular. The app runs constantly while the device is worn and alerts the user when a situation arises requiring an ECG recording and medical analysis. AliveCor also sells an electrocardiogram-capable wrist band for the Apple Watch and related WatchOS software that analyzes reading from the band. AliveCor claims that its products—the ECG-wristband hardware and software and its heart rate analysis app—“helped change the perception of the Apple Watch from an accessory to a personal health monitoring tool.”

AliveCor calls its heart rate monitoring app “SmartRhythm.” According to AliveCor, when sales of SmartRhythm took off Apple was inspired to announce an update to WatchOS with its own heart monitoring app designed to exclude AliveCor from the U.S. market for WatchOS heart rate analysis apps.

SmartRhythm works by using data from the Apple Watch’s heart rate algorithm. According to the complaint, Apple’s update to WatchOS altered the heart rate algorithm in a way that prevents third-party developers from being able to detect heart rate fluctuations and irregularities. As a result of these changes, SmartRhythm could not provide accurate heart rate analysis, and AliveCor removed it from the market.

Consequently, Apple is a monopolist in the WatchOS heart rate analysis app market, which AliveCor claims Apple is maintaining with exclusionary design changes to WatchOS, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and Section 17200 of California Business and Professions Code.

The court denied Apple’s motion to dismiss AliveCor’s monopolization claim in what it characterized as the “[single brand] aftermarket for WatchOS apps.” Applying the factors enumerated by the court in Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Sol., 513 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2008), the court found that the WatchOS app aftermarket was wholly derivative from the primary smartwatch market, the alleged restraint applied only to the aftermarket, Apple’s aftermarket power was not obtained through contract terms reached in the primary market, and that competition in the smartwatch market does not discipline anticompetitive practices in the WatchOS app aftermarket. Accordingly, the court ruled that AliveCor’s market definition met the Newcal standards for a “single product” relevant market.

Apple argued that a company that improves a product to the benefit of consumers does not violate antitrust laws “absent some associated anticompetitive conduct,” citing the leading “freedom of design” case of Allied Orthopedic Appliances Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Group LP, 592 F.3d 991, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2010). The court quoted the holding of Allied: “If a monopolist’s design change is an improvement, it is necessarily tolerated by the antitrust laws, unless the monopolist abuses or leverages its monopoly power in some other way when introducing the product.”

Apple argued that its update to WatchOS was purely a design change that benefitted users, with no associated anticompetitive conduct. It observed that AliveCor hadn’t established that consumers use Apple’s app instead of some third-party app, or that Apple rejected any third-party apps, or that no other third-party heart apps are available to Apple Watch users. But the court rejected those arguments, noting that Apple failed to provide any legal authority that would require such allegations.

Apple ignored AliveCor’s allegations that Apple abused or leveraged its monopoly power “in some other way” by changing its heart rate algorithm to make it effectively impossible for third parties to inform a user when to take an ECG. AliveCor contended that Apple’s updated heart rate algorithm, which was pushed out to all earlier Apple Watch models, did not improve user experience. Its purpose was to prevent third parties from identifying irregular heart rates and offering competing apps based on that data. “These allegations present the type of ‘associated conduct’ that makes product design changes cognizable under antitrust law. Plaintiff’s allegations plausibly establish that Apple’s conduct was anticompetitive,” Judge White held. A case management conference set for May 20.

Commentary

It is truly difficult to see how some separate, “associated” conduct by Apple other than its design change to WatchOS violates Section 2. It seems more straightforward to consider the design change itself to be a cognizable anticompetitive act. It may be time to drop the fiction maintained in Allied v. Tyco that design changes are “never” antitrust violations unless accompanied by some “other” conduct. Here, Apple has created the market itself in the form of an OS platform used by millions of consumers who depend on it to access all manner of competing complementary products. Under those circumstances, it should be uncontroversial to hold a platform operator liable under the antitrust laws for design changes that exclude competitors or foreclose participants from the market, without indulging in the fiction of “associated” conduct.

Article By Jonathan Rubin of MoginRubin

For more antitrust legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© MoginRubin LLP

FTC Imposes Record-Setting $10M Fine Against Multistate Auto Dealer, Settling Charges of Racial Discrimination and Unauthorized Charges

On March 31, the FTC and Illinois State Attorney General announced a settlement of charges against a large, multistate auto dealer that allegedly discriminated against black consumers and included illegal junk fees for unwanted “add-ons” in customers’ bills.

Citing violations under the FTC Act, TILA, ECOA, and comparable Illinois laws, the complaint alleged that eight of the dealerships and two general managers of Illinois dealerships tacked on illegal fees for unwanted products to customers’ bills, often at the end of hours-long negotiations. These add-ons were allegedly buried in the consumers’ purchase contracts, which were sometimes upwards of 60-pages long, and sometimes added despite consumers specifically declining the products.

In addition, employees of the auto dealership also allegedly discriminated against black consumers during the process of financing vehicle purchases.  On average, black customers at the dealerships were charged $190 more in interest and paid $99 more for similar add-ons than comparable non-Latino white customers.

The multistate dealer will have to pay $10 million to settle the lawsuit per the stipulated order, the largest monetary judgment ever required in an FTC auto lending case.

Putting it into Practice:  From FTC Chair Lina Khan and Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, the FTC appears poised to allege violations of the FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair acts or practices in light of discrimination found to be based on disparate treatment or having a disparate impact.  Their statement discusses how discriminatory practices can be evaluated under the FTC’s three-part unfairness test and concludes that such conduct fits squarely into the kind of conduct that can be addressed by the FTC’s unfairness prong.  This joint statement echoes similar announcements by CFPB Director Chopra about the use of unfairness to combat discrimination more broadly (we discussed Director Chopra’s statement and updates to the CFPB’s exam procedures in a recent Consumer Finance and FinTech blog post here).

The size of the financial judgment in this case underscores the seriousness with which the FTC takes discriminatory practices in consumer credit transactions entered into by entities over which they have authority, which includes auto dealerships.  As the FTC becomes increasingly focused on enforcement of key laws to protect consumers against discriminatory conduct, companies should use these latest agency pronouncements as a reason to be on high alert for potential discriminatory outcomes in their business activities, even if unintentional.

Article By Moorari Shah, A.J. S. Dhaliwal, and Katie Daw of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more antitrust legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Europol: More Than Half of Counterfeits Originate in China

On March 7, 2022, the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) jointly released the Intellectual Property Crime Threat Assessment 2022. Per the Assessment, China (including Hong Kong) was the main source of counterfeits based on number of counterfeits and by value of the counterfeits seized at the EU external borders.  Almost 76% of the fake goods detained were for trademark infringement; design infringement was the second most reported at 23% while copyright was third with 15%.

China and Turkey remain the main countries of origins for counterfeit clothing, shoes, bags, watches, and jewelry seized at the EU’s border. These goods are mostly ordered online and discovered as part of postal shipments or on passengers entering the EU.

Similarly, China is the country of origin for most of the seized counterfeit electrical/electronic and computer equipment, mobile phones and accessories. With respect to mobile phones, the Assessment states,

…the visual appearance of the counterfeit devices is very convincing, closely mimicking the external characteristics of the original phones. However, typically some features and software characteristics are missing and the International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) is often fake.  The use of cheap and substandard electric components, which can be found in fake batteries, headphones or chargers, pose safety risks.

“China and Turkey were among the most frequently reported non-EU countries of origin for counterfeit food and drink seized at the EU’s external border.” Similarly, counterfeit perfumes and cosmetic products often originate from China and Turkey.

In addition to ready-to-use IPR-infringing goods, product components, such as aroma compounds, fixatives and solvents, are increasingly being seized. These components are used to create the final counterfeit products in the EU.

More worrisome, China and Turkey were the main origin of counterfeit pharmaceutical products.

Toys round out the top 10 counterfeits with China also being main point of origin.

The full Assessment is available here: IP_Crime_Threat_Assessment_2022_FullR_en.

Article By Aaron Wininger of Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.