THE PER SE RULE AGAINST HARD-CORE ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS: ETCHED IN STONE OR ENDANGERED SPECIES?
Last year, the District Court for the District of Utah held that the rule of reason governed a criminal antitrust prosecution by the Department of Justice, filed against a company that allocated customers with a competitor. This trial level ruling is on appeal to the Tenth Circuit. The Court of Appeals’ decision could significantly affect both criminal and civil antitrust actions. This article addresses the pending case and appeal, and also discusses other recent DOJ enforcement actions, which the DOJ has filed as civil, rather than criminal, Sherman Act violations. The article further addresses whether these recent DOJ cases may be diluting the message that per se treatment has, traditionally, conveyed.
Featured News
Judge Mehta Questions Both Sides in Landmark Google Antitrust Case
May 2, 2024 by
CPI
FCC Urges Urgent Funding for Removal of Chinese Telecom Equipment from U.S. Networks
May 2, 2024 by
CPI
Former Pioneer CEO Facing Potential Criminal Charges For Colluding With OPEC
May 2, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea’s Antitrust Regulator Greenlights K-Pop Powerhouse Deal
May 2, 2024 by
CPI
Exxon’s Pioneer Purchase Approved, Former CEO Barred from Board
May 2, 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