A federal judge in Florida has dismissed a proposed class action against Burger King that alleges that the company’s former no-poach provisions in its franchise agreements were illegal.
The judge found that Burger King franchisees were dependent on their franchisor to such an extent that they constituted a single entity akin to a parent-subsidiary corporate relationship and were incapable of conspiring to violate the antitrust laws.
The plaintiffs claimed that the no-hire provisions were “per se” unlawful. The defendants insisted that, under a “quick look analysis,” no one with a rudimentary understanding of economics could find that the no-hire provisions had anticompetitive effects on employees or labor.
Full Content: Law 360
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Pork Industry Faces Legal Challenges as Antitrust Lawsuits Against Seaboard Foods Dismissed
Oct 2, 2024 by
CPI
CMA Strengthens Investigation with Advisory Panel of Veterinary Experts
Oct 2, 2024 by
CPI
US Merchants Sue Visa, Alleging Unfair Dominance in Debit Card Market
Oct 2, 2024 by
CPI
European Commission Appoints New Chief Competition Economist
Oct 2, 2024 by
CPI
EU Commission Requests Information from YouTube, Snapchat, TikTok on Algorithm Usage
Oct 2, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh