As the US Supreme Court readies to officially rule on the so-called pay-for-delay schemes used by brand name drug companies to keep the often cheaper generic forms off the shelves, analysts are reportedly expecting ongoing complexities to emerge from the ruling. Further, the ruling will likely lead to more litigation to contest the deals by both the Federal Trade Commission and private parties. The Federal Trade Commission maintains that the pay-for-delay deals violate antitrust law and prevent consumers from having access to less expensive medications. Analysts are torn as to which way the Court is likely to rule.
Featured News
PayPal, Revolut Weigh In as UK Targets Apple’s Tap-to-Pay Rules
Oct 27, 2026 by
CPI
Truist Weighs Sale of Insurance Lender Afco Credit
Oct 27, 2026 by
CPI
FTC Raises Antitrust Concerns Over Cintas’ $5.5 Billion Deal
Oct 27, 2026 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Samsung $15M Over Galaxy Gaming
Oct 27, 2026 by
CPI
New York Expands Corporate Crime Crackdown With New Antitrust Unit
Oct 27, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Exclusive Dealing
Oct 25, 2026 by
CPI
Exclusive Dealing Without Exclusivity: Screening Contracts, Loyalty Rebates, and the Limits of Antitrust Tests
Oct 25, 2026 by
David Martimort & Jérôme Pouyet
When Competition for Exclusivity Raises Prices: Rebates, Pricing Rules, and the Insulin Puzzle
Oct 25, 2026 by
Daniel P. O’Brien & Greg Shaffer
Why Leaving the Door Open Can Be (Much) Worse Than Closing It: Share-Based Requirements, Buyer-Specific Costs, and Foreclosure
Oct 25, 2026 by
Zhijun Chen & Greg Shaffer
Antitrust Chronicle® – EU Merger Guidelines
Oct 19, 2026 by
CPI