Articles Posted in Types of Antitrust Claims

Quick Update on Algorithmic Pricing: Yardi and the “Per Se” Standard

February 24, 2025 | Bona Law PC

In simple terms algorithmic pricing takes place when competitors make use of a software platform to share competitively sensitive information, which the pricing algorithm uses to recommend prices for all users.

Algorithmic pricing has been in the antitrust spotlight over the past few years.

The FTC has Algorithmic Price-Fixing in its Antitrust Crosshairs

New Antitrust Cases and Statements of Interests About Algorithmic Collusion

The main reason? Antitrust laws apply to algorithms implementing human agreements.

How to Show the Existence of an Agreement: Direct and Circumstantial Evidence

Remember that under US antitrust law, there are two ways to show the existence of an agreement:

Through direct evidence (sometimes this is a “smoking gun”), and;
Through circumstantial evidence: Alternatively, it’s more common to show the existence of an agreement through a combination of parallel conduct and “plus factors,” i.e., a common motive to conspire, evidence that shows that the parallel acts were against the apparent individual economic self-interest of the alleged conspirators, and/or evidence of a high level of interfirm communications.

But finding an express agreement between companies to fix prices is not super common these days. So, what happens when there is no agreement involved, and the algorithm “only” facilitates tacit collusion between the companies using it? Things get much murkier. That happens, for instance, when competitors use the software platform to share sensitive commercial information.

Agreements to Exchange Information: “Per Se” or Rule of Reason?

Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits every contract, combination or conspiracy that restrains trade, so long as those restraints are unreasonably restrictive of competition in a relevant market. This includes both an agreement and tacit collusion.

Restraints analyzed under the “per se” rule are those that are always (or almost always) so inherently anticompetitive and damaging to the market that they warrant condemnation without further inquiry into their effects on the market or the existence of an objective competitive justification. Business practices considered per se illegal under antitrust laws include: (a) horizontal agreements to fix prices, (b) horizontal market allocation agreements, (c) bid rigging among competitors; (d) certain horizontal group boycotts by competitors; and (e) sometimes tying arrangements.

On the other hand, a contract, combination or conspiracy that unreasonably restrains trade and does not fit into the per se category is usually analyzed under the so-called rule of reason test. This test focuses on the state of competition within a well-defined relevant agreement. It requires a full-blown analysis of (i) definition of the relevant product and geographic market, (ii) market power of the defendant(s) in the relevant market, (iii) and the existence of anticompetitive effects. The court will then shift the burden to the defendant(s) to show an objective procompetitive justification. Most antitrust claims are analyzed under this test.

Depending on the type of unlawful information exchange, it might be categorized as:

“Per se”unlawful conduct, when facilitates price fixing, bid rigging, or market allocation, so plaintiffs do not need to show actual harm to competition, or;
Unlawful conduct under the rule of reason, if the exchange of information leads to some anticompetitive effect, based on factors such as the structure of the industry involved, and the nature of the information exchanged, among others.

This is an important distinction to keep in mind if you want to understand why the District Court for the Western District of Washington in Duffy v. Yardi Systems Inc. recently denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, while stating—for the first time involving an antitrust case on algorithmic pricing—that plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to allege a per se unlawful antitrust conspiracy.

New Legal Standard for Algorithmic Pricing Antitrust Cases? Maybe…

We’ve seen several government and private antitrust lawsuits on algorithmic pricing during the past years, claiming that the use of a software platform to set prices constituted an anticompetitive conspiracy under the antitrust laws.

We’ve previously discussed all these cases in detail here. In a nutshell:

In 2022 plaintiffs in Realpage, Inc. Software Antitrust Litigation sued RealPage and its landlord-customers alleging that a management software tool helped them coordinate on prices by collecting non-public information on rents and vacant units. In January 2024, the Court denied the motion to dismiss––plaintiffs were able to show that RealPage’s software uses confidential competitor information through its algorithm to spit out price recommendations based on that private competitor data.

Second, it rejected claims alleging a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy (no agreement and no absolute delegation of their price-setting to RealPage) ––which would have been “per se” illegal––but concluded that those same landlords vertically conspired with RealPage.

In 2023, plaintiffs in Gibson v. MGM Resorts International and Cornish-Adebiyi v. Caesar’s Entertainment, Inc., alleged that hotels in Las Vegas and Atlantic City used a pricing algorithm to facilitate collusion, by providing hotel and casino room pricing and occupancy information. The district courts dismissed both cases, on May 8 and September 30, 2024, respectively, based on several grounds. First, plaintiffs did not show a horizontal agreement: the hotels were not using the platforms around the same time, did not agree to be bound by such price recommendations, and did not charge the same prices. And second, plaintiffs failed to show that the pricing recommendations were based on nonpublic, competitively sensitive information.
In Duffy v. Yardi Systems, Inc. plaintiffs similarly alleged that competing landlords violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, by unlawfully agreeing “to use Yardi’s pricing algorithms to artificially inflate” multifamily rental prices. On December 4, 2024, the court denied the motion to dismiss and allowed the case to proceed into discovery. There are two important nuances to highlight here.

First, and similarly to the RealPage case, the Court sided with plaintiffs and agreed on the existence of an antitrust conspiracy. This decision was not only based on defendants’ acceptance of Yardy’s invitation to trade sensitive information, which allow them to charge increased rents, but also on defendants’ parallel conduct (while contracting with Yardi), and “plus factors,” such as the exchange of nonpublic and competitive sensitive information, which suggested defendants acting for their mutual benefit.

Continue reading →

Dividing Markets and Customers: Are Market Allocation Agreements Per Se Antitrust Violations?

September 21, 2024 | Bona Law PC

Author: Jarod Bona

Have you ever considered the idea that your business would be much more profitable if you didn’t have to compete so hard with that pesky competitor or group of competitors?

Unless you lack competition—which is great for profits, read Peter Thiel’s book—this notion has probably crossed your mind. And that’s okay—the government doesn’t indict and prosecute the antitrust laws for what is solely in your mind, at least not yet.

But, except in limited instances, you should definitely not divide markets or customers with your competitors. Indeed, you shouldn’t even discuss the idea with your competitors, or, really, anyone (many antitrust cases are made on inconveniently worded internal emails and texts).

The reason that you shouldn’t discuss it is that market-allocation agreements are one of the few types of conduct that the antitrust laws consider so bad, courts label them “per se antitrust violations.” The other per se antitrust offenses are price-fixing, bid-rigging, maybe tying, and sometimes group boycotts.

What is a Market-Allocation Agreement?

When competitors divide a market in which they can compete into sections in which one or more competitors decline to compete in favor of others, they have entered into a market-allocation agreement.

The antitrust problem with a market-allocation agreement is that a group of customers experience a reduction in the number of suppliers that serve them. The companies dividing the markets benefit, of course, because they have less competition for at least some of the market, which means that it is easier to raise prices or reduce quality.

It doesn’t matter, from an antitrust perspective, how the competitors divide the markets or even whether they both end up competing for that product or service after the agreement.

For an obvious example, ponder a small town with two large real-estate brokerage businesses—Northern Real Estate Brokers and Southern Real Estate Brokers. A river flows through the town, roughly dividing it into northern and southern regions. The Northern Real Estate Brokers mostly attract clients north of the river and the Southern Real Estate Brokers usually service clients south of the river. But the river is passable; there is a bridge and it isn’t that big of a river anyway. So sometimes agents of each brokerage will participate in transactions on the other side of the river from their normal client base.

Late one evening, in the middle of the bridge, the leaders of the two companies meet and agree that from that point on, each company would only represent sellers for properties on their side of the river.

This is a market-allocation agreement and the leaders could find themselves in antitrust litigation, or even jail (the Department of Justice will often prosecute per se antitrust violations as criminal law violations).

While the geographic boundary created an obvious method for the two companies to divide markets, they also could have agreed not to steal each other’s existing customers (market allocation based upon incumbency, which is common). So if a real estate agent from the northern brokerage firm won a customer, no agent from the southern brokerage firm would compete for that customer’s business in the future.

This customer allocation agreement is also a per se antitrust violation. To see how this type of antitrust offense can develop in a seemingly innocent way, read our article on the anatomy of a per se antitrust violation.

In this way, the antitrust laws actually encourage stealing customers.

Continue reading →

New Antitrust Cases and Statements of Interests About Algorithmic Collusion

June 9, 2024 | Bona Law PC

Author: Luis Blanquez

We recently wrote about the Federal Trade Commission’s blog post explaining how relying on a common algorithm to determine your pricing decisions might violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The FTC has Algorithmic Price-Fixing in its Antitrust Crosshairs

It was just a matter of time until the first cases would hit the courts. That’s why during the last couple of years, we’ve seen four main federal antitrust cases alleging that algorithmic pricing might violate the antitrust laws. In three of them, the antitrust agencies also filed Statements of Interest (SOI), outlining the agencies’ opinion about what the legal principles applicable to claims of algorithmic price fixing should be.

Realpage, Inc. Software Antitrust Litigation

This multidistrict litigation in the Middle District of Tennessee involves unlawful price-fixing schemes against multifamily housing developers and managers, and student housing developers and managers, both organized by RealPage––a software algorithm company. RealPage developed software to collect property owners’ and managers’ data, used for pricing and inventory strategies, that later shared with its clients.

In January 2024, the Court: (i) denied the motion to dismiss the multifamily housing cases––the renters plausibly alleged an antitrust violation, but (ii) rejected claims alleging a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy among landlords, which would have been per se illegal. The Court, however, concluded that those same landlords vertically conspired with RealPage. The Court also dismissed the student housing plaintiffs’ complaint.

In parallel, the DOJ opened an investigation and filed a SOI. Among other things, the DOJ highlighted:

The fact that today software algorithms process more information more rapidly than humans and can be employed to fix prices. The technical capabilities of software can enhance competitors’ ability to optimize cartel gains, monitor real-time deviations, and minimize incentives to cheat.
Section 1 prohibits competitors from fixing prices by knowingly sharing their competitive information with, and then relying on pricing decisions from, a common human pricing agent who competitors know analyzes information from multiple competitors. The same prohibition applies where the common pricing agent is a common software algorithm.
Factual allegations in both complaints point to evidence of an invitation to act in concert followed by acceptance—evidence that is sufficient to plead concerted action. Among other things, RealPage required each user to submit real-time pricing and supply data to it, and RealPage’s marketing materials allegedly “touted” its use of “non-public data from other RealPage clients,” enabling them to “raise rents in concert”; as well as the algorithms’ ability to “facilitate collaboration among operations” and “track your competition’s rent with precision.”
The complaints then allege that the landlords “gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it.” In particular, the landlords allegedly sent RealPage the non-public and competitively sensitive data (as RealPage proposed), and overwhelmingly priced their units in line with RealPage’s suggested prices (80-90%). Indeed, the complaints also contain ample allegations on how RealPage directly constrained the “deviations” from its suggested prices, including by enforcing and monitoring compliance with those prices, so the landlords effectively delegated aspects of their pricing decisions.
Relatedly, the multifamily plaintiffs allege that the landlords jointly delegated aspects of decision making on prices to RealPage. They allege that, by using RealPage’s pricing algorithms, each client defendant “agreed” to a common plan that involved “delegat[ing] their rental price and supply decisions to a common decision maker, RealPage.” Indeed, RealPage allegedly touted this feature—stating in a press release that it gives clients “the ability to ‘outsource daily pricing and ongoing revenue oversight,’” such that RealPage could “set prices” as though it “own[ed]” the clients’ properties “ourselves.’”
Jointly delegating any part of the decision-making process reflects concerted action. That the delegation is to a software algorithm, rather than a human, makes no difference to the legal analysis. Just as “surrender[ing] freedom of action. . . and agree[ing] to abide by the will of the association” can be enough for concerted action, so can be relying on a joint algorithm that generates prices based on shared competitively sensitive data.
The “per se” rule prohibiting price fixing applies to price fixing using algorithms. And the analysis is no different simply because a software algorithm is involved. The alleged scheme meets the legal criteria for “per se” unlawful price fixing. Although not every use of an algorithm to set price qualifies as a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, it is per se unlawful when, as alleged here, competitors knowingly combine their sensitive, nonpublic pricing and supply information in an algorithm that they rely upon in making pricing decisions, with the knowledge and expectation that other competitors will do the same.

The District of Columbia Attorney General has also filed a similar action in the Superior Court of D.C., alleging violations of the D.C. Antitrust Act.

Duffy v. Yardi Systems, Inc.

In this case from the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, plaintiffs allege that competing landlords violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, by unlawfully agreeing “to use Yardi’s pricing algorithms to artificially inflate” multifamily rental prices.

The Agencies also filed a SOI to explain the two legal principles applicable to claims of algorithmic price fixing. First, a competitors’ agreement to use an algorithm software with knowledge that other competitors are doing the same thing constitutes evidence of a contract, combination or conspiracy that may violate Section 1. Second, the fact that defendants deviate from the pricing algorithm’s recommendations––for instance, by just setting initial starting prices or by starting with prices lower than the ones the algorithm recommends—is not enough to get them “off the hook” for illegal price fixing (even if no information is directly shared between the parties).

The Agencies SOI’s focus was on the second point: Defendants retaining pricing discretion. The Agencies stress in the SOI that it is “per se” illegal for competing landlords to jointly delegate key aspects of their pricing to a common algorithm, even if the landlords retain some authority to deviate from the algorithm’s recommendations. Although full adherence to a price-fixing scheme may render it more effective, the effectiveness of the scheme is not a requirement for “per se” illegality. Consistent with black letter conspiracy law, the violation is the agreement, and unsuccessful price-fixing agreements are also per se illegal.

Casino-Hotel Operators Cases

Two new algorithmic pricing antitrust cases are also ongoing against casino hotel operators in Las Vegas and Atlantic City.

In Cornish-Adebiyi v. Caesar’s Entertainment, Inc., a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, plaintiffs allege a conspiracy against eight Atlantic City casino-hotel operators, and the Cendyn Group LLC, which is a provider of the algorithmic software platform, called “Rainmaker,” used to fix, raise, and stabilize the prices of casino-hotel guest rooms in Atlantic City. Rainmaker allegedly gathers real-time pricing and occupancy data to generate “optimal” room rates for each participating casino hotel, which the software then recommends to each casino hotel.

Continue reading →

Is it Possible to Win a Robinson Patman Act Case Now?

May 29, 2024 | Bona Law PC

Author: Steven Cernak

Some of us have been asserting for years that Robinson Patman, the federal price-discrimination antitrust law, is merely “forgotten but not gone.” That is, while there has been no FTC enforcement in decades, a few private lawsuits are filed every year and careful potential defendants still follow Robison Patman compliance programs. Recent statements suggesting a potential FTC revival seemed to jog the memories of practitioners that Robinson Patman remains on the books. Now, a lower court judgment by a dedicated group of plaintiffs and their lawyer provides more evidence that the law is anything but gone.

Clear Eyed Look at Robinson Patman

Very generally, Robinson Patman prohibits a seller of goods from offering lower prices or greater promotional allowances to one purchaser than to another competing purchaser. As we explain in other posts, there are many elements and defenses that make is difficult for a plaintiff to win. Court interpretations of those elements and defenses for the last few decades have only increased that difficulty. Still, one recent case shows that victory at the trial court level is possible.

In L.A. International Corp. v. Prestige Consumer Healthcare, Inc., Defendants manufacture and distribute Clear Eyes eye drops. The suit alleged that Defendants sold Clear Eyes at a lower price and with greater promotional allowances to Costco (specifically, Costco Business Centers that resell to retailers) than to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are several distributors that also buy and resell such products to retailers like local convenience stores. Interestingly, some of these same plaintiffs, and their counsel, have been involved in a long-running series of Robinson Patman cases alleging that the manufacturer of 5-Hour Energy also discriminated in favor of Costco.

Here, the case was filed in August 2018 and went to trial in December 2023. A jury found that Defendants had violated Section 2(a) (and a California unfair competition law) by offering a lower net price to Costco than to most of the Plaintiffs. The jury allocated about $700,000 in actual damages among several of the Plaintiffs. In May 2024, the judge found that Defendants also had violated Section 2(d) by offering greater promotional allowances to Costco and issued an injunction requiring Defendants to offer identical prices and proportionally equal promotional allowances to Plaintiffs going forward.

At the same time as his injunction ruling, the judge rejected Defendants’ arguments about several problems with the jury instructions. Specifically, the judge refused to reconsider the instructions laying out the overall standard that Plaintiffs had to meet as well as how a potential “functional discount” claim was to be evaluated. Unlike the lower court and Ninth Circuit in the 5-Hour Energy case, this judge seemed to have no problem supporting the jury’s verdict that most of the Plaintiffs actually competed with the Costco Business Centers.

So, in many ways, this case is unremarkable. A plaintiff presented evidence to a jury that, following a judge’s instructions mostly copied from ABA Model Instructions, found a Robinson Patman violation and set damages. The judge then followed that verdict and found another violation and provided injunctive relief. Yet, such cases and certainly such plaintiff verdicts are rare today. So, what are the takeaways for other potential plaintiffs or defendants?

Takeaways

First, maybe even more than all antitrust litigation, Robinson Patman litigation is time-consuming and fact intensive. The case took over 5 years to get to trial and the possibility of appeals still exists. The Plaintiffs are located in different parts of California plus Texas and New York. Each Plaintiff had to show at the local level that it competed with a specific Costco Business Center and that such competition was harmed by Defendants’ practices. Given the various elements and defenses and courts’ interpretations of Robinson Patman, no short cuts were possible.

Second, as we explained in prior posts and elsewhere, few courts have seen such a case in the last thirty years. Going back a couple decades further, the courts that did face such cases attempted to interpret Robinson Patman consistently with the rest of the antitrust laws under the then-new Chicago-School focus on competition and consumer welfare. As a result, there are plenty of defendant-friendly Robinson-Patman rulings, opinions, and dicta available.

Continue reading →

What Are the Elements for a Monopolization Claim under the Federal Antitrust Laws?

May 20, 2024 | Bona Law PC

Author: Jarod Bona

Do you or your competitor have a monopoly in a particular market? If so, your conduct or their conduct might enter Sherman Act, Section 2 territory, which we call monopolization.

If you are in Europe or other jurisdictions outside of the United States, instead of monopoly, people might label the company with extreme market power as “dominant.”

Of course, it isn’t illegal itself to be a monopolist or dominant (and monopoly is profitable). But if you utilize your monopoly power or obtain or enhance your market power improperly, you might breach US, EU, or other antitrust and competition laws.

In the United States, Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it illegal for anyone (person or entity) to “monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations.” But monopoly, by itself, is not illegal. Nor is it illegal for a monopolist to engage in competition on the merits.

If you are interested in learning more about abuse of dominance in the EU, read this article.

In the United States, monopolists have more flexibility than in the EU, but they are still under significant pressure and could face lawsuits or government investigations at any time, even when they don’t intend to violate the antitrust laws. There can be a fine line between strong competition on the merits and exclusionary conduct by a monopolist.

Here are the elements of a claim for monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act:

The possession of monopoly power in the relevant market.
The willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.

These two basic elements look simple, but you could write books about them.

The Possession of Monopoly Power in the Relevant Market

To determine whether an entity has monopoly power, courts and agencies usually first define the relevant market, then analyze whether the firm has “monopoly” power within that market.

But because the purpose of that analysis is to figure out whether certain conduct or an arrangement harms competition or has the potential to do so, evidence of the actual detrimental effects on competition might obviate the need for a full market analysis. If you want to learn more about this point, read FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists (and subsequent case law and commentary). You can show monopoly power directly.

Sometimes this element leads to difficult questions about the line between monopoly power in a relevant market and something slightly less than that. Other times, the monopoly-power element comes down to how the court will define the relevant market. A broader market definition may create a finding of no monopoly power, while a more narrow definition means the powerful company has monopoly power.

Continue reading →

Antitrust for Kids: Watch Out for Predatory Halloween…Pricing!!

October 19, 2023 | Bona Law PC

Author: Molly Donovan

At Argo Elementary, a group of kids gathers daily at lunch to buy and sell candy. The trading activity is a longtime tradition at Argo and it’s taken very seriously—more like a competitive sport than a pastime.

Candy trading doesn’t end once a 5^th grader graduates from Argo. It continues across town at Chicago Middle School—but instead of lunch, candy trading happens there at the close of each school day. (The middle school had banned lunchtime trading due to several disputes that grew out of hand.)

Now here’s where it gets complicated, and nobody knows why it works this way, but the average lunchtime price at Argo determines the starting price for trades later in the day at Chicago.

For example: the average selling price for a candy bar on Monday, lunch at Argo is $2.50. Monday after-school prices at Chicago also will start at $2.50.

There are rules about what kind of candy can be traded—so that one trade can be easily compared to another (candied apples-to-candied apples) for purposes of determining who’s “winning.”

And sometimes kids—particularly the older ones at Chicago—place bets on what will happen on a particular trading day in the future, e.g., I bet prices will reach $3 or I bet no more than 50 candy bars will get sold this Friday.

That’s it by way of background. Here’s our story.

Arthur D. Midland (“ADM”) is 9. He is the link between Argo and Chicago. Each day, ADM leaves Argo Elementary when school lets out, walks to Chicago Middle, announces the “start-of-trade” Chicago price based on the lunchtime Argo price, and Chicago trading begins. (ADM’s mother allows this because ADM’s older brother (Midas) also trades at Chicago—so the two boys can watch each other.)

At the start of the school year, ADM contrived a very clever scheme. He bet Midas that, on Halloween, Chicago prices would be very low—as low as $1. Midas said, “No way! September prices are already at $2.50. If anything, prices will increase as kids go candy crazy in October. I’ll take that bet.”

So, for every candy bar sold at Chicago on Halloween for $1 or less, Midas would owe ADM $1. And for every candy bar sold at Chicago for more than $1, ADM would owe Midas $1.

With that bet front of mind, ADM became the primary candy seller at Argo, and as Halloween neared, he flooded Argo with candy and sold it intentionally at very low prices—50 cents for a Snickers! (ADM had the requisite inventory because he was an avid trick-or-treater and had saved all his Halloween candy from years past.)

Due to ADM’s scheme, Argo prices got so low that some kids packed up their candy and went home—refusing to trade there at all.

Well, Halloween finally came and, as you can imagine, ADM made a killing on the bet—100 candy bars were sold at Chicago on Halloween at less than $1, forcing Midas to pay ADM his entire savings. This more than compensated ADM for whatever losses he incurred for under-selling at Argo.

Once Midas realized ADM’s trick, he was furious. Didn’t ADM cheat? Midas assumed—as did all candy traders—that bets derived from candy sales would be based on real—not artificial—market forces.

Did ADM get away with it?

So far, no.

My Muse: For now, plaintiff Midwest Renewable Energy has survived a motion to dismiss its Section 2 monopolization claim against Archer Daniels Midland.

The claim is based on allegations of predatory pricing—basically that the defendant’s prices were below an appropriate measure of its costs and that the low prices drove competitors from the market allowing the defendant to recoup its losses. (For more on predatory pricing, read here.)

In the ADM case, Midwest alleges that ADM manipulated ethanol-trading prices at the Argo Terminal in Illinois to create “substantial gains” on short positions ADM held on ethanol futures and options contracts traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Because the Argo prices determined the value of the derivatives contracts, by flooding Argo with ethanol that ADM sold at too-low prices, ADM allegedly was able to win big on the derivatives exchange—recouping whatever losses it incurred on the underlying asset.

On its motion to dismiss, ADM argued that Midwest had not sufficiently alleged that ethanol producers had exited the market due to ADM’s low prices or that ADM subsequently recouped its losses in the ethanol market. (ADM classed these arguments as going to antitrust injury.)

The Court agreed that Midwest was required to allege both that rivals exited the market and that recoupment was ongoing or imminent, but the court ruled Midwest’s allegations sufficient to do so.

Specifically, Midwest had alleged that 12 ethanol producers had either stopped or decreased ethanol production—which is enough at the motion to dismiss phase. The court said whether that alleged “handful” of plant closures had a discernible effect on consumers is a fact-intensive analysis not susceptible to resolution on the pleadings.

Continue reading →

Antitrust, Web3 and Blockchain Technology: A Quick Look into the Refusal to Deal Theory as Exclusionary Conduct

June 17, 2023 | Bona Law PC

Author: Luis Blanquez

A company using a blockchain––or perhaps even the blockchain itself––, with a sizeable share of a market, could be a monopolist subject to U.S. antitrust laws. But monopoly by itself isn’t illegal. Rather, a company must use its monopoly power to willfully maintain that power through anticompetitive exclusionary conduct.

Thus, a monopolization claim requires: (i) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market––i.e. the ability to control output or raise prices profitability above those that would be charged in a competitive market; and (ii) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from attaining it by having a superior product, business acumen, or even an accident of history. United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966).

The monopolist may also have a legitimate business justification for behaving in a way that prevents other firms from succeeding in the marketplace. For instance, the monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services.

There are many ways a company may willfully acquire or maintain such monopoly power through anticompetitive exclusionary conduct. Some of them include exclusive supply or purchase agreements, tying, bundling, predatory pricing, or refusal to deal.

In this article we briefly discuss the refusal to deal theory of harm in the context of web3.

What is Web3?

The internet is an evolving creature. Thirty years ago, web 1.0 was all about browsing and reading information. As a consumer you had access to information, but few were able to publish online.

In the early 2000s the current web 2.0. arrived, and everyone started publishing their own web content and building communities. The problem today is that we have a centralized internet. Very few companies––big online platforms such as Google, Facebook or Amazon––control and own everyone’s online content and data. And they even use all that data to make money through, for instance, targeted advertising.

That’s why web3 is a necessary step in the right direction. As a consumer you can now access the internet without having to provide your personal data to these online gatekeepers. And you don’t need to give up ownership of the content you provide. Plus, you own your digital content and can execute digital agreements using crypto currencies. If wonder how is all that possible, the answer is through a new infrastructure called blockchain.

You can read a broader discussion of antitrust guidelines for companies using blockchain technology here.

Refusal to Deal with Competitors or Customers

Competitors and Rivals

First, an illegal refusal to deal may occur when the monopolist refuses to deal with a competitor or rival. Under US antitrust laws such claims are challenging and rarely successful.

Although a company generally has no duty to deal with its rivals, courts have found antitrust liability in some limited scenarios when a monopolist (i) unilaterally outright refuses to sell a product to a rival that it made available to others (Verizon Commc’ns, Inc. v. Law Offs. of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 407–09 (2004), see also Aspen Skiing, 472 U.S. at 601; Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 377-78 (1973); OR (ii) had a prior voluntary and presumably profitable course of dealing with a competitor, but then terminated the relationship, giving up short-term profit from it in order to achieve an anticompetitive end. See Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. linkLine Commc’ns, 555 U.S. 438, 442, 451 (2009), Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 731 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 572 U.S. 1096 (2014).

Applied to the web3 world, this means that the validators of a blockchain could face antitrust scrutiny only if they had monopoly power, and (i) they previously allowed a competitor access to its blockchain but later agreed to exclude that rival, or (ii) sacrifice short-term profits without a reasonable business justification. This is, of course, unlikely considering the decentralized structure of blockchains and their need for gas fees to keep validators’ business profitable and the chain secured. When the validators are decentralized, they are not a single economic entity for purposes of the antitrust laws. But the risk would still differ depending on the blockchain and the level of decentralization.

What we might eventually see, however, is a company with monopoly power using a blockchain to exclude its rivals from the market through different anticompetitive conduct. For instance, we might see restrictions to only use one blockchain, to use smart contracts to impose loyalty rebates and other barriers to switch between blockchains, conditioning the use of one blockchain for a specific application or product by restricting the use of other blockchain or non-blockchain rivals’ infrastructure, or to require suppliers upstream or end customers downstream, to use the same blockchain for different products or applications.

Customers

Second, a refusal to deal may also take place when a monopolist refuses to deal with its customers downstream or suppliers upstream. A monopolist’s refusal to deal with customers or suppliers is lawful so long as the refusal is not the product of an anticompetitive agreement with other firms or part of a predatory or exclusionary strategy. Note, however, that a monopolist cannot decline to deal with customers as retaliation for those customers’ dealings with a competitor. That is often called a refusal to supply and is in a different doctrinal category than a refusal to deal. But, beyond these anticompetitive exceptions, private companies are typically free to exercise their own independent discretion to determine with whom they want to do business.

This test is broader than the one for competitors and requires a case-by-case legal and economic analysis to determine whether anticompetitive conduct exists. And web3 is not any different in this respect.

The Apple App Store and web3

Let’s take the Apple App Store as an example.

In the web2 world, Apple has created a “walled garden” in which Apple plays a significant curating role. Developers can distribute their apps to iOS devices only through Apple’s App Store and after Apple has reviewed an app to ensure that it meets certain security, privacy, content, and reliability requirements. Developers are also required to use Apple’s in-app payment processor (IAP) for any purchases that occur within their apps. Subject to some exceptions, Apple collects a 30% commission on initial app purchases and subsequent in-app purchases.

There are currently several related ongoing antitrust investigations and litigations worldwide about Apple’s conduct with its App Store. In the U.S., the Court of Appeals from the Ninth Circuit on the Epic Games saga held that Apple should not be considered a monopolist in the distribution of iOS apps. But this ruling also came with a string attached. The judge concluded that Apple did violate California’s unfair competition law and could not maintain anti-steering rules preventing users from learning about alternate payment options. If you want to learn more (see here). Both companies have recently asked the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing and the stakes are high.

Companies in web3 are now starting to deal with similar potentially anticompetitive behavior from web2 big tech companies. Uniswap, StepN and Damus are just three of many recent examples.

Continue reading →

Ten Ways to Tell Whether You Have an Antitrust Claim

June 3, 2023 | Bona Law PC

Author: Jarod Bona

Law school exams are all about issue spotting. Sure, after you spot the issue, you must describe the elements and apply them correctly. But the important skill is, in fact, issue spotting. In the real world, you can look up a claim’s elements; in fact, you should do that anyway because the law can change (see, e.g., Leegin and resale price maintenance).

And outside of a law-school hypothetical, it usually isn’t that difficult to apply the law to the facts. Of course, what makes antitrust law interesting is that it evolves over time and its application to different circumstances often challenges your thinking. Sometimes, you may even want to ask your favorite economist for some help.

Anyway, if you aren’t an antitrust lawyer, it probably doesn’t make sense for you to advance deep into the learning curve to become an expert in antitrust and competition doctrine. It might be fun, but it is a big commitment to get to where you would need to be, so you should consider devoting your extra time instead to Bitcoin or deadlifting.

But you should learn enough about antitrust so you can spot the issues. This is important because you don’t want your company to violate the antitrust laws, which could lead to jail time, huge damage awards, and major costs and distractions. And as antitrust lawyers, we often counsel from this defensive position.

It is fun, however, to play antitrust from the offensive side of the ball. That is, you can utilize the antitrust laws to help your business. To do that, you need a rudimentary understanding of antitrust issues, so you know when to call us. Bona Law represents both plaintiffs and defendants in antitrust litigation of all sorts.

Continue reading →

2022 Developments in Antitrust and Distribution

February 6, 2023 | Bona Law PC

Author: Steven Cernak

In the antitrust world in 2022, stories about Big Tech, government enforcement, and merger challenges dominated the headlines. But in putting together the 2023 edition of Antitrust in Distribution and Franchising (available for purchase soon!), I found a number of less-famous opinions that US distributors and their counsel should know. Just like last year at this time, I thought it made sense to share some of the research highlights. Below, I summarize opinions on important topics like Robinson-Patman, vertical price agreements, and locked-in consumers.

Robinson-Patman

Robinson-Patman’s Depression-era prohibition of some price and promotion discrimination has not been enforced by the federal antitrust authorities for decades — although, as we discussed recently, that might change soon. Even as government enforcement disappeared, private enforcement continued — again, as we have discussed before. Courts dealing with those private suits have been stingy, sometimes even hostile, in their interpretations of the law — once again, as we have discussed very recently. Two 2022 opinions continued those trends.

In Dahl Automotive Onalaska Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (588 F.Supp. 3d 929, W.D. Wisc.), the defendant paid its dealers a portion of the MSRP of every vehicle sold so long as the dealer was building, or had built, a dealership exclusive to defendant’s brand. Plaintiffs were several small dealers who claimed the payments were harmful price or promotional allowance discrimination because other, larger, dealers sold more cars and so could recoup the cost of the exclusive dealership construction more quickly.

The court granted defendant’s Robinson Patman Act summary judgement motion. The court found that even if the payments allowed larger dealers to recover their construction costs more quickly, “it doesn’t mean that the payments result in price discrimination” because the promised payments merely allowed the dealers to recoup their cost of construction already incurred. Therefore, plaintiffs’ Section 2(a) claim failed. The court also found that the payments were not for “promotional allowances” because the dealership building did not resemble “advertising-related perks.” The court agreed with prior courts that had “concluded that buildings where sales occurred were not promotional facilities.” Therefore, plaintiffs’ Section 2(d) claim failed.

In In re Bookends & Beginnings LLC (2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152596, S.D.N.Y.), plaintiff independent booksellers claimed that major publishers and Amazon violated various laws, including Robinson-Patman Section 2(a), when the publishers granted Amazon a larger discount than it granted plaintiffs. The magistrate judge recommended granting defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim because the Morton Salt inference of competitive injury was inappropriate when the actual discount to Amazon was not known or alleged and there was no other factual support for the complaint’s “conclusory allegation” that the discount was “steep,” “huge,” or “substantial.

Vertical Price Agreements and Retailer Cartels

As we have discussed on the blog, the Leegin case changed the evaluation of vertical price agreements under federal antitrust law from per se illegality to a rule of reason analysis. But while the Court found that such agreements were not always anticompetitive, it did discuss some situations when they might be anticompetitive: For example, when “there is evidence retailers were the impetus for a vertical price restraint, there is a greater likelihood that the restraint facilitates a retailer cartel.” The Court also expressed concern if the restraint were imposed by a manufacturer or retailer with market power.

In Davitashvilli, et. al. v. GrubHub Inc. (2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58974 S.D. N.Y.), purported classes of restaurant customers survived a motion to dismiss their claims that defendants, three of the most popular online platforms for meal deliveries, harmed competition through vertical price agreements. The three defendants require the restaurants whose meals they deliver to charge the same price to customers using defendants’ services as those customers dining in and/or using a competitive delivery service. Plaintiffs likened defendants to the retailers and the restaurants to the manufacturers in Leegin, a comparison the court found “somewhat strained” but “plausible.” Because of the alleged market power of each or all of the defendants, plaintiffs plausibly claimed that the restaurants were forced to work through defendants and raise their prices to the purported classes of diners to recoup some of their additional costs.

Market Power Over Locked-In Customers

In the Supreme Court’s classic tying case, Kodak, the defendant required purchasers of replacement parts for its copiers to also purchase copier service from it. Because defendant often was the only seller of those parts, plaintiffs claimed that defendant had market power sufficient to force customers to accept this tie. Defendant, and the Court’s dissent, argued that defendant could not have power in the aftermarket for parts for its copiers because it had no power in the foremarket for copiers. The Court’s majority responded that defendant could have market power over that subset of its customers who were “locked in” to defendant’s copiers, perhaps because they purchased a copier before defendant adopted its tying policy and because switching to a different copier was costly. As a result, defendant’s summary judgment motion in Kodak was denied.

Continue reading →

Antitrust Group Boycotts: My Competitors are Conspiring Against Me

January 14, 2023 | Bona Law PC

Author: Jarod Bona

Do you feel paranoid? Maybe everyone really is conspiring against you? If they are competitors with each other—that is, if they have a horizontal relationship—they may even be committing a per se antitrust violation.

A group boycott occurs when two or more persons or entities conspire to restrict the ability of someone to compete. This is sometimes called a concerted refusal to deal, which unlike a standard refusal to deal requires, not surprisingly, two or more people or entities. This antitrust claim fits into Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which requires a meeting of the minds, i.e an agreement or conspiracy.

A group boycott can create per se antitrust liability. But the per se rule is applied to group boycotts like it is applied to tying claims, which means only sometimes. By contrast, horizontal price-fixing, market allocation, and bid-rigging claims are almost always per se antitrust violations.

We receive a lot of questions about potential group boycott actions. This is probably the most frustrating type of antitrust conduct to experience as a victim. Companies often feel blocked from competing in their market. They might be the victim of marketplace bullying.

You can also read our Bona Law article on five questions you should ask about possible group boycotts.

Many antitrust violations, like price-fixing, tend to hurt a lot of people a little bit. A price-fixing scheme may increase prices ten percent, for example. Price-fixing victims feel the pain, but it is diffused pain among many. Typically either the government antitrust authorities or plaintiff class-action attorneys have the biggest incentive to pursue these claims.

Perpetrators of group-boycott activity, by contrast, usually direct their action toward one or very few victims. The harm is not diffused; it is concentrated. And it is often against a competitor that is just trying to establish itself in the market. The victim is often a company that seeks to disrupt the market, creating a threat to the established players. This is common. Of course, excluding or limiting competitors from a market may also create diffused harm among customers or sellers for those excluded competitors.

The defendants may act like bullies to try to keep that upstart competitor from gaining traction in the market. Sometimes trade associations lead the anticompetitive charge.

Group boycott activity often occurs when someone new enters a market with a different or better idea or way of doing business. The current competitors—who like things just the way they are—band together to use their joint power to keep the enterprising competitor from succeeding, i.e. stealing their customers and market share.

Sometimes group-boycott claims are further complicated when the established competitors—the bullies—use their relationships with government power to further suppress competition. Indeed, sometimes the competitors actually exercise governmental power.

This is what occurred in the NC Dental v. FTC case (discussed here, and here; our amicus brief is here): A group of dentists on the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners engaged in joint conduct, using their government power, to thwart teeth-whitening competition from non-dentists.

This, in my opinion, is the most disgusting of antitrust violations: a group of bullies engaging government power to knock out innovation and competition. And we, at least in the past, have watched the Federal Trade Commission take a pro-active role against such anticompetitive thuggery.

Group Boycotts and ESG

An increasingly prominent example of a group boycott that you should watch for are companies that coordinate their ESG policies such that they exclude competitors that decline to accept these rigid restrictions. You can see how this could develop: A group of companies in an industry decide that they want to win some PR points by announcing ESG policies, but quickly realize that this decision increases their own costs such that they can’t offer products or services that are of competitive quality and price with those in their industry that focus on the consumer. So they coordinate together and try to stop suppliers from dealing with this consumer-friendly company, or engage in other collective tactics to exclude this lower-priced competition. There is a good chance that these actions create antitrust liability for the coordinating ESG companies. And as the FTC recently reiterated, ESG does not create antitrust immunity.

Continue reading →