A group of economist has entered the scene within the Supreme Court and the current case made by the Federal Trade Commission against the so-called pay-for-delay deals in which brand-name drug makers pay their generic counterparts to stay off the shelves for some time. An amicus brief was filed last Friday on behalf of the economists arguing that the FTC does not present sufficient economic evidence to back its claims that pay-for-delay deals hurt consumers. Additionally, the economists are claiming the FTC’s definition of pay-for-delay, or reverse payments, is too broad, and that reverse payments are economically the same as other patent settlements in other markets.
Featured News
AI Agents Can Now Shop and Pay; Regulators Race to Catch Up
Feb 11, 2026 by
CPI
Meta Executives to Testify in Case Targeting Instagram’s Design Practices
Feb 11, 2026 by
CPI
Epic Games Criticizes UK’s App Store Reform Plan as Insufficient
Feb 11, 2026 by
CPI
Paramount Signals No Retreat in Battle for Warner Bros. Discovery
Feb 10, 2026 by
CPI
Sam Bankman-Fried Seeks New Trial While Serving 25-Year Sentence
Feb 10, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Hub-&-Spoke Conspiracies
Jan 26, 2026 by
CPI
A Data Analytics Company as the Hub in a Hub-and-Spoke Cartel
Jan 26, 2026 by
Joseph Harrington
Hub and Spoke Cartels
Jan 26, 2026 by
Patrick Van Cayseele
Hub-and-Spoke Collusion or Vertical Exclusion? Identifying the Rim in Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracies
Jan 26, 2026 by
Rosa Abrantes-Metz, Pedro Gonzaga, Laura Ildefonso & Albert Metz
The Algorithmic Middleman in a Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracy: Divergent Court Decisions and the Expanding Patchwork of State and Local Regulations
Jan 26, 2026 by
Bradley C. Weber