Leiv Blad, Bryan Killian, Jan 27, 2010
Overturning a 96-year-old rule, the United States Supreme Court held in Leegin that minimum resale price maintenance (“RPM”) agreements would no longer be considered illegal per se under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, but instead would be evaluated under the more lenient “rule of reason.” A number of states immediately objected to the change, vowing to legislatively reverse Leegin. Maryland has already done so and other states may follow.
This flurry of legislative activity raises the question: Can a state overturn Leegin consistent with the United States Constitution? The answer to that question is no, at least to the extent the state regulates conduct that is wholly outside its borders.
Links to Full Content
Featured News
Spain’s BBVA Remains Optimistic About Hostile Takeover of Sabadell
Mar 18, 2025 by
CPI
BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street Seek Dismissal of Texas Antitrust Lawsuit
Mar 18, 2025 by
CPI
EU to Boost Metal Sectors with Energy Relief and Safeguards
Mar 18, 2025 by
CPI
Players’ Association Sues Tennis Governing Bodies Over Alleged Antitrust Violations
Mar 18, 2025 by
CPI
Turkey Moves to Curb Big Tech’s Power with New Regulatory Bill
Mar 18, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Self-Preferencing
Feb 26, 2025 by
CPI
Platform Self-Preferencing: Focusing the Policy Debate
Feb 26, 2025 by
Michael Katz
Weaponized Opacity: Self-Preferencing in Digital Audience Measurement
Feb 26, 2025 by
Thomas Hoppner & Philipp Westerhoff
Self-Preferencing: An Economic Literature-Based Assessment Advocating a Case-By-Case Approach and Compliance Requirements
Feb 26, 2025 by
Patrice Bougette & Frederic Marty
Self-Preferencing in Adjacent Markets
Feb 26, 2025 by
Muxin Li