Duane Morris LLP is pleased to announced that Chambers USA has recognized Duane Morris Antitrust division and attorneys.
Edward G. Biester III, Antitrust
Sean P. McConnell, Antitrust
Brian H. Pandya, Antitrust
Recent actions by both the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) indicate that the enforcement agencies are continuing with policies similar to the prior administration, albeit with slightly different objectives and focus. Businesses should monitor public statements and recent enforcement activity to evaluate how antitrust enforcement priorities at the agencies are taking shape. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.
At the American Bar Association’s recent antitrust meeting in Washington, D.C., the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Office of Policy and Coordination’s Deputy Assistant Director Synda Mark cautioned companies seeking to collaborate on environmental initiatives that they are not exempt from antitrust enforcement. Mark commented during a panel discussion that antitrust officials will not “turn a blind eye” to anticompetitive conduct, despite corporate promises of the environmental benefits of collaborative conduct, noting that the FTC works only to prevent economic harms and that environmental justice goals do not “seep into the antitrust analysis.” Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.
As part of its ongoing enforcement efforts against allegedly deceptive and misleading uses of artificial intelligence, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) disclosed five new enforcement actions on September 25, 2024, against companies across various industries that either allegedly made fraudulent claims about their AI resources or offered AI services that could be used in misleading or deceptive ways. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.
On August 20, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in the Ryan lawsuit, struck down a final Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rule―which was set to go into effect on September 4, 2024, and ban noncompetition agreements for virtually all U.S. workers―holding that the rule shall not be enforced by the FTC or take effect as to any workers or employers. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.
On July 26, 2024, attorneys for the NCAA, the Power Five conferences and classes of college athletes filed a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement to resolve three antitrust litigations: House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA and Carter v. NCAA. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.
On May 23, 2024, the NCAA reached a historic $2.8 billion settlement with former college athletes who had filed an antitrust class action demanding billions in potential compensation allegedly denied to them for decades. This represents a major turning point in college athletics. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.
On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted 3-2 to approve a final rule banning non-competes with all workers 120 days after publication in the Federal Register, and invalidating existing non-competes with all workers except senior executives. Although the final rule abandons many aspects of the rule proposed in January 2023, the final rule represents a sea change in the law relating to non-compete clauses in the United States. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.
The Federal Trade Commission will vote at an open commission meeting to be held virtually on Tuesday, April 23, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern on its proposed rule banning employers from entering into noncompete agreements with workers. If issued, the final rule would go into effect 60 days following its publication in the Federal Register, and companies would have to be in compliance 180 days after publication. Read more on Duane Morris’ website.
On April 15, 2024, in Visa Inc., et al., v. National ATM Council, Inc., et al., No. 23-814 (Apr. 15, 2024), the U.S. Supreme Court declined a petition for review submitted by Visa Inc. (“Visa”) and Mastercard Inc. (“Mastercard”) urging the Supreme Court to resolve a circuit split over the correct standard of review courts should use when evaluating motions for class certification. Mastercard and Visa argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit erred by only requiring plaintiffs to show that questions common to the class predominate and allowing the fact finder to later address issues related to uninjured class members. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review.
The D.C. Circuit’s ruling in Visa v. National ATM Council is required reading for any corporate counsel handling antitrust class actions involving price-fixing allegations and underscores the importance of the standard of review used by courts when considering class certification. Read the full post on the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog.
