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
College Sports Leaders in Intensive Talks to Settle NIL Antitrust Case Against NCAA
Apr 30, 2024 by
CPI
EU Investigates Facebook’s and Instagram’s Handling of Disinformation Ahead of Elections
Apr 30, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Lawsuit Targets Hotel Giants for Alleged Price Fixing with AI
Apr 30, 2024 by
CPI
ABA Seeks to Join FTC Lawsuit Against Amazon Over Antitrust Concerns
Apr 30, 2024 by
CPI
Google Agrees to Pay News Corp for AI-Related Content
Apr 30, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI