Antitrust Archives - Page 3 of 12 - The National Law Forum

FTC Announces 2024 Increase in HSR Notification Thresholds and Filing Fees

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced the annual revisions to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (HSR Act) thresholds and HSR filing fees, which will become effective on March 6, 2024. The revised thresholds will apply to any merger or acquisition closing on or after the effective date.

The FTC is required to adjust the HSR thresholds annually based upon the change in gross national product. This year, the change in the “size of transaction” threshold has increased from $111.4 million to $119.5 million.

Under the HSR Act, when a deal satisfies the “size of person” and “size of transaction” thresholds, and no exemption from reporting is available, the deal must be reported to the FTC and the US Department of Justice, and the parties must wait for a designated period of time before closing the transaction.

Size of Person. The revised size of person thresholds will generally be met if one party involved in the deal has assets or annual sales totaling $239 million or more and one other party involved in the deal has assets or annual sales of at least $23.9 million. Satisfaction of the size of person thresholds is not required, however, if the transaction is valued at more than $478 million.

Size of Transaction. The revised size of transaction threshold will be met if the buyer will hold an aggregate amount of stock, non-corporate interests and/or assets of the seller valued at more than $119.5 million as a result of the deal.

The notification thresholds applicable to purchases of voting securities will increase as follows:

February 1, 2001 Thresholds (Original)	Current Thresholds as of February 27, 2023	New Thresholds Effective March 6, 2024
$50 million	$111.4 million	$119.5 million
$100 million	$222.7 million	$239 million
$500 million	$1.1137 billion	$1.195 billion
25% if worth more than $1 billion	25% if worth more than $2.2274 billion	25% if worth more than $2.39 billion
50% if worth more than $50 million	50% if worth more than $111.4 million	50% if worth more than $119.5 million

The thresholds applicable to many exemptions, including those governing foreign acquisitions, also will increase. However, the $500 million threshold applicable to acquisitions of producing oil and gas reserves and associated assets will not change.

The civil penalty for failing to comply with the notification and waiting period requirements of the HSR Act has also increased to up to $51,744 per day for each day a party is in violation.

HSR Filing Fees. Additionally, the HSR filing fee thresholds and filing fee amounts have increased as follows:

Original Filing Fee	Original Applicable Size of Transaction	2024 Adjusted Filing Fee	2024 Adjusted Applicable Size of Transaction
$30,000	Less than $161.5 million	$30,000	Less than $173.3 million
$100,000	Not less than $161.5 million but less than $500 million	$105,000	Not less than $173.3 million but less than $536.5 million
$250,000	Not less than $500 million but less than $1 billion	$260,000	Not less than $536.5 million but less than $1.073 billion
$400,000	Not less than $1 billion but less than $2 billion	$415,000	Not less than $1.073 billion but less than $2.146 billion
$800,000	Not less than $2 billion but less than $5 billion	$830,000	Not less than $2.146 billion but less than $5.365 billion
$2,250,000	$5 billion or more	$2,335,000	$5.365 billion or more

The new fees also will become effective on March 6, 2024.

Becoming Antitrust Aware in 2024: Top Five Recommendations for the New Year

A new year means resolutions which are often centered around self-improvement measures like weight loss, exercise plans, and other health improvement measures. Companies can also benefit from resolutions. Increasing antitrust awareness is not usually on the resolution list but here we offer some ideas for companies as they embark on a new year.

Treat antitrust as a priority in 2024.

As antitrust lawyers, our viewpoint may be biased, and we certainly appreciate that most companies already have a lengthy list of priorities for their in-house and outside legal teams. Given that all companies, regardless of their size, are subject to the antitrust laws, and given the high stakes involved (including criminal penalties and treble damages awards), antitrust certainly deserves to be on the priority list. One relatively easy way to get the ball rolling is to put fresh eyes on your company’s antitrust policy. When was the last time it was updated? What type of trainings does your company use to teach the concepts contained in the policy? The training doesn’t need to be – and shouldn’t be – boring or esoteric. Instead, trainings should be engaging and tailored to the specific antitrust risks that workgroups may face. For example, the sales team will need different antitrust training than those working on supply chain or environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives. Ask your antitrust lawyer to create easy-to-follow, lively online trainings that can be viewed on demand. And if your company doesn’t have an antitrust policy, we suggest that creating one be moved to the top (or near top) of the legal department’s to-do list in 2024.

Understand the current antitrust enforcement priorities.

2024 will be a significant year for antitrust. It’s an election year, which means 2024 may be the Biden Administration’s last year to execute on plans that have been in the works since President Biden issued Executive Order 14036, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” in July 2021. Some of the Administration’s more dramatic plans include significant revisions to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) premerger notification process. While we don’t expect all the FTC and DOJ’s sweeping proposals to make it into the HSR final rule, we do expect some changes to be made, and they will likely mean significant additional burdens for filing parties. We also expect to see the FTC’s new rule on non-compete agreements. The FTC’s proposal would ban most non-compete agreements, and some states have already enacted their own prohibitions on non-compete agreements.

If your company engages in M&A, be aware of the new Merger Guidelines.

The newest Merger Guidelines, addressing both horizontal and vertical mergers, were unveiled in December 2023 . One of the most significant changes announced in the 2023 Merger Guidelines are the decreased levels of concentration that will trigger a rebuttable presumption of illegality. Under the new Guidelines, a market share of greater than 30% and a concentration increase of 100 points will be enough to trigger that rebuttable presumption. That is not to say the presumption is the death knell for a transaction, but it does mean that the government enforcement will be aggressive. Also be aware that the 2023 Guidelines introduce new topics, such as labor markets. Early analysis and planning will be critical, requiring involvement of skilled antitrust counsel.

Understand that application of the antitrust laws is constantly evolving.

The language of the core U.S. antitrust laws – the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the FTC Act, hasn’t changed, but the application of these laws is always evolving. For example, the antitrust enforcers and private plaintiffs are increasingly focused on labor issues, such as “no poach” agreements and wage fixing. Antitrust enforcers are also focused on private equity, as evidenced by the FTC’s recent lawsuit against Welsh, Carson, Anderson, and Stowe and some of the changes contained in the proposed revisions to the HSR Rules. Technology is also a significant factor that provokes interesting questions that don’t have answers, at least not currently. For example, do pricing algorithms lead to price fixing? How will antitrust enforcers deal with artificial intelligence?

Pay attention to state antitrust enforcers.

The federal regulators at the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission may get most of the attention, but we must never forget that states have their own antitrust laws and their own antitrust enforcers, who have the power to investigate and bring legal action. Often, the state regulators work collaboratively with their federal counterparts, but the state regulators are free to go their own way, such as those targeting various ESG initiatives. Also bear in mind that states are increasingly blazing new trails, such as bans on non-competes. Thirteen states have also enacted “mini” HSR premerger notification statutes for health care deals. It’s always prudent to check the laws of the state or states where business is conducted to determine if there are any state-specific antitrust considerations.

Tempur Sealy Acquisition of Mattress Firm: A Vertical Bridge Too Far for the FTC?

In a deal announced on May 9, Tempur Sealy International, Inc., the world’s largest mattress manufacturer, has agreed to acquire Houston-based Mattress Firm Group, Inc., the largest U.S. brick-and-mortar bedding retailer, with more than 2,300 locations and a robust e-commerce platform. The companies hope to finalize the $40 billion deal in the second half of 2024.

Following pre-merger notification of the deal last October, the FTC is reportedly taking a deep dive into the mattress industry to assess whether the transaction is likely to harm competition. The depth of the investigation itself signals a departure from the antitrust agencies’ traditional approach to “vertical” mergers in which firms in the same industry but in non-overlapping market segments (such as manufacturing and retailing the same product category) benefit from a soft presumption of legality. Customarily, vertical integration was perceived to be benign, if not somehow “efficiency enhancing.”

Whatever the merits of applying such leniency to traditional supply chains of widgets, it does not serve competition policy well in an economy dominated by technology-driven platforms that serve several enormous groups of customers at once. In today’s markets, non-overlapping vertical arrangements can severely affect whether rival firms can gain access to inputs, markets, or prospective customers.

Evidence of the FTC’s awareness of the potential for vertical mergers to cause competitive harm abounds. On September 15, 2021, the FTC withdrew the FTC/Department of Justice 2020 Vertical Merger Guidelines and Commentary. The Commission’s majority said that the 2020 Guidelines included a “flawed discussion of the purported procompetitive benefits (i.e., efficiencies) of vertical mergers, especially its treatment of the elimination of double marginalization” and by failing to address “increasing levels of consolidation across the economy.”

Mattresses and Widgets

A course correction is borne out by the Commission’s recent challenges to several proposed vertical mergers, including Nvidia Corp.’s attempted acquisition of Arm Ltd., Lockheed Martin Corporation’s attempted acquisition of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., Microsoft Corp.’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard Inc., and Illumina, Inc.’s acquisition of GRAIL, Inc. After the parties abandoned the Nvidia/Arm acquisition, the FTC’s press release was effusive: “This result is particularly significant because it represents the first abandonment of a litigated vertical merger in many years,” the Commission said.

Enter the Tempur Sealy/Mattress Firm transaction, a vertical acquisition in a product category whose markets resemble widgets more than online merchandising or payment networks. Tempur Sealy became the world’s largest mattress manufacturer in 2012, when Tempur-Pedic acquired Sealey Corp. for $1.3 billion. The company currently earns revenues of $5 billion a year, almost a third of the $17 billion U.S. mattress market. Mattress Firm, the largest mattress retailer in the U.S. with annual revenues of $2.5 billion a year, has been owned since 2016 by German retail holding company Steinhoff International Holdings NV. The firm filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in October 2018, but quickly emerged the following month after closing 700 stores.

The merging parties are no strangers to one another, having engaged in a commercial relationship for the past 35 years. In 2017, Tempur Sealy sued Mattress Firm for selling mattresses that infringed on the Tempur-Pedic line-up, but in 2019, after its emergence from bankruptcy, Mattress Firm and Tempur Sealy struck a long-term partnership agreement. A merger of the two firms has been under discussion in one form or another for most of the past decade.

Public statements by the parties stress the complementarity of the deal, which they describe as combining “Tempur Sealy’s extensive product development and manufacturing capabilities with vertically integrated retail.” The merged entity will end up with about 3,000 retail stores, 30 e-commerce platforms, 71 manufacturing facilities, and 4 R&D facilities around the world. It is the kind of combination of complementary businesses that not long ago might not have even earned a Second Request from the antitrust agencies.

The FTC, which at least since last December has been investigating the potential effects on the mattress industry of a merger between the two market leaders, issued a Second Request earlier this month. By February, the Commission had already interviewed executives from the top 20 mattress manufacturers, according to a report in Furniture Today (February 2, 2023).

Disruptors and Goliaths

The FTC is likely to discover a large and growing global industry undergoing significant changes in how mattresses are designed, marketed, and sold in reaction to changing consumer preferences.

Several online mattress-in-a-box companies have disrupted the industry. Today, nearly half of all consumers purchases are online. They will also find fairly low barriers to entry into both brick-and-mortar and online retailing and mattress manufacturing. Their review of the Tempur Sealy/Mattress Firm transaction will also encounter two players in the market with a long history of cooperation.

With 20 manufacturers significant enough to interview, the Commission would appear to be faced with a fairly competitive market – one in which little or no foreclosure of rivals to the ability to obtain inputs or the availability of channels of distribution to reach consumers will result from the proposed transaction. Additional competitive pressure comes from Amazon, which began selling its own mattresses in 2018 as part of the Amazon Essentials line, and Walmart, which introduced its own mattress-in-box brand, Allswell, available online and in stores.

On balance, the acquisition of Mattress Firm by Tempur Sealy would not appear to raise significant antitrust issues. A challenge to this transaction by the FTC may be a vertical bridge too far. That is no doubt the assessment reached by Scott Thompson, chairman and CEO of Tempur Sealy, who expressed confidence in clearing the FTC’s antitrust review, “either in the traditional sense or through litigation.”

For more Antitrust and FTC news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

DOJ Fighting for E-Sports Player Compensation

The Biden administration continues its campaign against wage suppression as a source of harm to workers, competitive markets, and the economy. In its latest move, the Department of Justice is supporting players in professional e-sports leagues with a suit to stop Overwatch and Call of Duty developer, Activision Blizzard, Inc., from capping player compensation. Unlike salary restrictions in traditional sports leagues, those implemented by Activision were not produced through collective bargaining and, therefore, are not exempt from antitrust scrutiny.

Complaint and Consent Decree

The DOJ filed suit to challenge Activision’s wage restrictions on April 3^rd, alleging Activision and independently-owned teams in two e-sports leagues agreed to implement certain wage restrictions, including a “Competitive Balance Tax.” The tax penalizes teams in the Overwatch and Call of Duty leagues if player compensation exceeds a threshold set by Activision. According to the complaint, this agreement violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The DOJ concurrently filed a consent decree to address the competition issues. If approved by the court, the consent decree would prohibit Activision from implementing any restriction that would limit player compensation directly or indirectly. It would also require Activision to, among other things, certify it has terminated competitive balance taxes and implement antitrust compliance and whistleblower policies.

Ongoing Antitrust Issues Concerning Activision-Microsoft Merger

While Activision was negotiating the consent decree with the DOJ, its potential parent company, Microsoft, was continuing to defend its proposed $69 billion acquisition of Activision. In December 2022, the FTC sued to block the merger, claiming “the largest ever [acquisition] in the video gaming industry” would enable Microsoft to suppress competitors of Xbox and its rapidly growing subscription content and cloud-gaming business. This case remains pending.

[Read Jonathan Rubin’s Dec. 12, 2022, commentary on the FTC’s challenge, titled, “An Unstoppable Force Meets an Immovable Object: Microsoft to Fight FTC Over Activision Deal.”]

Microsoft has had more success with antitrust agencies overseas. While the European Commission initially put the deal on hold in December 2022, Reuters and Polygon.com reported the Commission’s concerns have been mollified by Microsoft’s commitment to offer licenses to rival gaming companies. Polygon has also reported that the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority has “set aside some of its main concerns” about the merger. It quotes the CMA as stating that “the cost to Microsoft of withholding Call of Duty from PlayStation would outweigh any gains from taking such action.” The deal has also been approved in Japan, Chile, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and Serbia, Polygon reports.

Non-Statutory Exemption Inapplicable to E-Sports Salary Restrictions

Readers may be wondering why salary caps are commonplace in traditional sports leagues like the NFL, NBA and NHL but not permitted in e-sports leagues. The key distinction is that the salary caps in traditional sports leagues are negotiated and agreed to by player unions as part of the collective bargaining process. As a result, these salary caps (and the agreements containing them) fall under the “non-statutory antitrust exemption,” which was created by the Supreme Court to resolve the inherent conflict between the underlying goals of antitrust laws and labor laws.

Specifically, the non-statutory exemption relieves parties to an agreement restraining trade from antitrust liability where (1) the restraint primarily affects the parties to the agreement and no one else, (2) the agreement concerns wages, hours, or conditions of employment that are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining, and (3) the agreement is produced from bona fide, arm’s-length collective bargaining. The restraints at issue here do not satisfy either the first or third prongs because they affect the e-sports players, who were not parties to the agreement, and were not produced through collective bargaining. Therefore, unlike salary restrictions in other professional sports leagues, those agreed to by Activision and the independent teams are subject to the antitrust laws.

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

FTC Launches New Office of Technology

On February 17, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission announced the launch of their new Office of Technology. The Office of Technology will assist the FTC by strengthening and supporting law enforcement investigations and actions, advising and engaging with staff and the Commission on policy and research initiatives, and engaging with the public and relevant experts to identify market trends, emerging technologies and best practices. The Office will have dedicated staff and resources and be headed by Chief Technology Officer Stephanie T. Nguyen.

Article By Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group

For more privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Privacy Tip #359 – GoodRx Settles with FTC for Sharing Health Information for Advertising

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced on February 1, 2023 that it has settled, for $1.5M, its first enforcement action under its Health Breach Notification Rule against GoodRx Holdings, Inc., a telehealth and prescription drug provider.

According to the press release, the FTC alleged that GoodRx failed “to notify consumers and others of its unauthorized disclosures of consumers’ personal health information to Facebook, Google, and other companies.”

In the proposed federal court order (the Order), GoodRx will be “prohibited from sharing user health data with applicable third parties for advertising purposes.” The complaint alleged that GoodRx told consumers that it would not share personal health information, and it monetized users’ personal health information by sharing consumers’ information with third parties such as Facebook and Instagram to help target users with ads for personalized health and medication-specific ads.

The complaint also alleged that GoodRx “compiled lists of its users who had purchased particular medications such as those used to treat heart disease and blood pressure, and uploaded their email addresses, phone numbers, and mobile advertising IDs to Facebook so it could identify their profiles. GoodRx then used that information to target these users with health-related advertisements.” It also alleges that those third parties then used the information received from GoodRx for their own internal purposes to improve the effectiveness of the advertising.

The proposed Order must be approved by a federal court before it can take effect. To address the FTC’s allegations, the Order prohibits the sharing of health data for ads; requires user consent for any other sharing; stipulates that the company must direct third parties to delete consumer health data; limits the retention of data; and implement a mandated privacy program. Click here to read the press release.

Article By Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Future of Non-Competes Up in the Air

The FTC recently announced its proposal to ban non-compete clauses in employment agreements. That proposal is currently in a 60-day period of public comment, and employers are (understandably) nervous. While many employers rely on these provisions to manage competition and protect their IP and confidential information, companies across the country may soon find themselves in the shoes of California employers, having to work around restrictions on non-competes to maximize protection within the increasingly narrow confines of the law.

Employers are not without options in responding to the potential changes should they become law–more aggressive retention incentives, intelligent data security, and stricter confidentiality agreements should all be part of the conversation. Even deferred compensation could be on the table, as noted in the article, though beware of the tax implications. Employers should also keep in mind that the FTC proposal, should it become law, will doubtless be subject to legal challenges and could be tied up in the courts for a while before becoming effective.

“Observers on both sides say that limitations on the clauses will compel employers to get more creative about how they retain talent, using everything from compensation to career advancement to keep workers engaged and loyal to the company. Some companies use deferred compensation—such as retention bonuses or rolling stock options that vest after, say, three years—to give people incentives to stay.”

Article By Paul M. Huston of Mintz

Click here to visit the National Law Review for more antitrust and FTC legal news.

Exporting U.S. Antitrust Law: Are We Really Ready for NOPEC?

The year is 1979. Inflation and lines at the gas pumps caused by a revolution in Iran have stunned Americans. Driven to action, the International Association of Machinists (IAM) files suit in the Central District of California against OPEC and its 14 member countries for participating in a cartel that controls the worldwide price of oil. None of the defendants made any kind of appearance before the court. Nonetheless, the union lost, and its case was dismissed.

Under the Constitution, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. A district court has no power to decide a case over which it has no subject matter jurisdiction. The requirement cannot be waived or avoided; a court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction has no legal authority to entertain the matter. A federal statute known as the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act of 1976 (FSIA) limits the court’s jurisdiction in cases involving foreign sovereigns and, subject to a few specific exceptions, grants foreign states immunity from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. The court in IAM v. OPEC raised the FSIA on its own (there being no defendants present) and, finding the OPEC states immune (OPEC itself could not be served), dismissed the case. Thusly did the IAM lose its antitrust case against defendants who never even showed up in court.

The judiciary has resisted the innumerable attempts since 1979 to hold the OPEC cartel accountable for violating U.S. antitrust laws, even though the court’s IAM decision has proven erroneous. Acts by a sovereign “based upon a commercial activity” in the U.S., or affecting U.S. commerce, do not enjoy immunity under FSIA. Although the district court in IAM didn’t think so, the Ninth Circuit on appeal made clear that pricing of oil on world markets is indeed commercial activity that affects the U.S. economy and, therefore, not entitled to sovereign immunity. But the Appeals Court nonetheless sidestepped the case, taking refuge in the judge-made Act-of-State doctrine. The doctrine is prudential, as opposed to jurisdictional, and amounts to a voluntary renunciation of jurisdiction by a court when its decision could interfere with the conduct of foreign policy by the executive branch. Indeed, it is easy to see how a suit against the members of OPEC for price fixing might intrude into a sensitive foreign policy area.

In the four decades since IAM, these considerations have obstructed U.S. courts from holding OPEC accountable for a cartel formed for the purpose of and with the effect of stabilizing the price of a commodity in interstate or foreign commerce, which is illegal per se. As recently as 2010, the Obama administration urged the Fifth Circuit to dismiss an antitrust suit brought by private plaintiffs on Act-of-State grounds, it being up to the executive branch and not the courts to conduct foreign policy and protect national security interests.

Since 2000, when the first No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act was introduced in the House, the same legislation has been introduced no less than four times. NOPEC came closest to passage in 2007, when different versions of the bill passed the House and the Senate but were not reconciled. The House and Senate judiciary committees have now both approved the bill, and the latest version is on the Senate’s legislative calendar. Congress could act quickly if there is bipartisan support, otherwise it will take several months and require reintroduction in 2023.

NOPEC consists of three operative parts.

First, it would amend the Sherman Antitrust Act by adding a new Section 7(a) that explicitly makes it illegal for any foreign state to act collectively with others to limit production, fix prices, or otherwise restrain trade with respect to oil, natural gas, or other petroleum products. Judicial enforcement and a remedy would be available only to the Department of Justice, so the bill does not create a private right of action.
Second, it would amend FSIA to explicitly grant jurisdiction to U.S. court against foreign sovereigns to the extent they are engaged in a violation of the new Section 7(a).
Third, the legislation clarifies that the Act-of-State doctrine does not prevent U.S. courts from deciding antitrust cases against sovereigns alleged to have violated the new Section 7(a).

Calls for taking a harder line against OPEC are growing stronger in light of recent actions taken by the cartel. In May, for example, Saudi Arabia and 10 other OPEC members voted to slash oil production – resulting in high gas prices – as the U.S. and other nations imposed embargoes on Russian oil. OPEC’s production cuts provided Russia with a substantial lifeline in its increasingly difficult, costly, and prolonged invasion of Ukraine.

The Senate bill is sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley and cosponsors Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Mike Lee (R-UT), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who argue that OPEC’s price-fixing goes directly against the idea of fair and open markets, with current laws leaving the U.S. government “powerless” over OPEC. But are we really ready for NOPEC?

The concern over interference with foreign policy is far from trivial.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) recently sent a letter to Congress opposing the NOPEC bill, stating it would harm U.S. military, diplomatic, and business relations. API President and CEO Mike Sommers warned that while NOPEC is a noble endeavor designed to protect consumers, it would open the U.S. up to reciprocal lawsuits by foreign entities, writing that this could devastate certain political relations and trigger retaliation from OPEC countries. Other NOPEC critics say OPEC countries may limit other business dealings with the U.S., including lucrative arms deals or by pulling in their investments, as Saudi Arabia threatened to do in 2007, when the Deputy Saudi Oil Minister said the country would pull out of a multi-billion Texas oil refinery project unless the DOJ filed a statement of interest urging dismissal of an antitrust case then pending in the U.S. courts. In 2019, Saudi Arabia and OPEC threatened to start selling their oil in currencies other than the dollar, which would weaken the dollar’s position as the global vehicle currency.

For these reasons, it’s not clear what the White House would do if NOPEC passes. The Biden administration’s view of the measure seems to have shifted a bit, but it hasn’t come out strongly one way or the other. This is hardly surprising given the delicate and complex nature of the issue, the ongoing impact of Russia’s war on Ukraine, and the great importance voters place on the price of gas. Then-Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on May 5, 2022, that the “potential implications and unintended consequences of this legislation require further study and deliberation.” More recently, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Brian Deese, President Biden’s Director of the National Economic Council, said that nothing is off of the table – that the administration is assessing the situation and inviting recommendations. On Oct. 5 the Department of Energy said it would release another 10 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In making that announcement, Sullivan and Deese said the administration will consult with Congress on “additional tools and authorities to reduce OPEC’s control over energy prices.” They also reiterated the importance of investing in clean American-made energy to reduce reliance on foreign fossil fuels.

OPEC has such tremendous sway over U.S. gas prices and national security it is no wonder Congress continues to try to do something to free U.S. from OPEC’s whims and hold it accountable for going against the ideals of free markets. But whether NOPEC is the right approach remains an open question.

The antitrust laws represent a national ideological perspective on the most beneficial way to organize an economy. Policy differences between nations are supposed to occur in the diplomatic arena, not in the courts of one country or another. And if OPEC or its members lose an antitrust case in a U.S. court, how will the court enforce its judgment?

Article By Jonathan Rubin of MoginRubin

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

FTC Commercial Surveillance and Data Security Forum Highlights Industry and Consumer Perspectives

On September 8, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission hosted a virtual public forum on its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) concerning “commercial surveillance and lax data security.” The forum featured remarks from FTC Chair Lina Kahn, Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, as well as panels with industry leaders and consumer advocates.

Remarks from Chair Khan and Commissioners Slaughter and Bedoya focused on the need for public participation in the rulemaking process and the FTC’s role in privacy regulation in the absence of comprehensive federal legislation. Commissioner Slaughter noted that, until such federal legislation is passed, the FTC will continue to use its Section 5 authority to regulate unfair and deceptive practices related to privacy and data security.

The industry panel was moderated by FTC Senior Advisor Olivier Sylvain and focused in part on how the FTC should structure a potential rule. Multiple industry panelists emphasized the need for rules that limit out-of-context data use or tracking, while still allowing in-context use to as consumers expect. Industry panelists also highlighted the need for heightened rules for “dominant” industry players and financial penalties for bad behaviors.

The consumer advocate panel focused on issues surrounding meaningful consumer consent and the negative effects of commercial surveillance on consumers, such as one-click background checks and demographic-tailored advertising that disproportionately affects minority groups in negative ways. Similar to the industry panel, consumer advocate panelists also highlighted out-of-context data use and dominant industry actors as some of the major issues the FTC should address in its rulemaking. The FTC will receive public comments on the ANPR until October 21, 2022.

Article By Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group of Hunton Andrews Kurth

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

Update Alert on Mickelson v. PGA Tour, Inc.

On August 16, 2022, we prepared an alert discussing Mickelson v. PGA Tour, Inc. and the claims made by suspended PGA Tour players (“Player Plaintiffs”) against PGA Tour, Inc. (“Tour.”) Quite a bit has transpired in the past three weeks both in and out of the courtroom. This alert highlights new developments that stem from an amended complaint that was filed in the US District Court, Northern District of California on August 26, 2022 (the “Amended Complaint.”)

The Amended Complaint can be found here and the original alert can be found here.

The Amended Complaint removes several Player-Plaintiffs listed as plaintiffs in the original complaint. Originally, the Player Plaintiffs were comprised of the following eleven golfers: Abraham Ancer, Bryson DeChambeau, Taylor Gooch, Matt Jones, Jason Kokrak, Phil Mickelson, Carlos Ortiz, Pat Perez, Ian Poulter, Hudson Swafford, and Peter Uihlein. Per the Amended Complaint, four of the original Plaintiff Players have been removed as plaintiffs, namely: Abraham Ancer, Jason Kokrak, Carlos Ortiz, and Pat Perez.^[1] As a result, only seven of the eleven original Player Plaintiffs remain as Player Plaintiffs.

Perhaps the most significant development in the case is that LIV Golf has been added as a Plaintiff in the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint generally reiterates allegations made by the Player Plaintiffs (together with LIV Golf, collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) in the original complaint and incorporates LIV Golf’s alleged harm, mainly, that the Tour’s efforts made to prevent LIV Golf’s entry into the elite professional golf market forced LIV Golf to delay and restructure its 2022 launch plans and required LIV Golf “to pay excessively higher guaranteed payments to recruit a number of marquee players than would be required in a competitive market.”

Three more claims were added to the Amended Complaint, for a total of eight claims brought by the Plaintiffs. The first new claim alleges that Tour has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing the market for promotion of elite professional golf events (which is in addition to the Section 2 claim in the original complaint that alleges that the Tour maintains a monopoly on elite event services.) In addition to the now three antitrust claims brought in the Amended Complaint, LIV Golf also brought separate tortious interference claims of contractual relationships and prospective business relationships. The antitrust claims and the tortious interference claims are based on the premise that the Tour’s exclusionary actions: (i) prevent competition for the promotion of golf entertainment among stakeholders, such as broadcasters, players (via the Media Rights Regulation), vendors, sponsors, advertisers, partners, and agencies, and (ii) interfere with LIV Golf’s ability to negotiate and enter into contracts with those stakeholders.

Key Observations

Although more than one-third of the original Player Plaintiffs have withdrawn from Mickelson v. PGA Tour, Inc., the addition of LIV Golf as a plaintiff elevates the lawsuit because it brings the very public rivalry between the Tour and LIV Golf to the courtroom. The circumstances surrounding the case are also rapidly evolving. Since the order denying Player Plaintiffs Talor Gooch, Hudson Swafford, and Matt Jones’s motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) issued on August 9, 2022, six Tour members (most notably world number 2 Cameron Smith) have joined LIV Golf, which amounts to nearly half of the major winners since 2016 and 26 of the world’s top 100 golfers that have now signed with LIV Golf. In addition, the Tour announced various rule changes for the 2023 PGA Tour season, including increased purse winnings, bonus pools, and elevated events. It remains to be seen whether these circumstances will materially alter the arguments made throughout the TRO proceedings.

The tentative date to hear dispositive motions (such as summary judgment) has been scheduled for July 23, 2023, and the jury trial date is expected to begin on January 8, 2024.

FOOTNOTES

^[1] Pat Perez was the only player who directly provided the reason for his withdrawal: “I didn’t really think it through… I did it to back our guys,” he reportedly said. He also said that he does not have “ill will” towards the Tour and emphasized his content of playing for LIV Golf.

Article By Richard L. Brand, Thomas R. Castiello, Brian D. Schneider, and Anjelica L. Fuccillo of ArentFox Schiff LLP

For more entertainment, art, and sports legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Category: Antitrust

FTC Announces 2024 Increase in HSR Notification Thresholds and Filing Fees

Like this: