United States v. Microsoft, antitrust consent decrees, and the need for a proper scope of judicial review
Article Abstract:
The standard of judicial review applied to antitrust consent decrees by the courts should be consistent with the "public interest" standard that has been in place since the Tunney Act was passed, but judges should also be allowed to look beyond the face of the decree to consider undue political influence. The US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned the lower court's refusal to accept the consent decree in United States v. Microsoft Corp. by applying a "mockery of judicial power" standard. That standard would promote the type of automatic judicial approval that the Tunney Act was intended to stop.
Publication Name: Antitrust Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0003-6056
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Indirect purchaser litigation: ARC America's chickens come home to roost on the Illinois Brick wall
Article Abstract:
Antitrust practitioners cannot yet tell whether state laws allowing indirect purchasers to sue for antitrust damages will increase liability, but the US Supreme Court has held, in California v. ARC America Corp., that these state laws are not preempted by federal antitrust law. The Supreme Court found in 1977 in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois that indirect purchasers cannot sue under federal antitrust laws. Some states have responded with legislation that essentially repeals Illinois Brick for state law purposes. Congress should consider preempting state indirect purchaser statutes.
Publication Name: Antitrust Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0003-6056
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
The limits of state indirect purchaser suits: class certification in the shadow of Illinois Brick. (Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois)
Article Abstract:
The Supreme Court, in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois in 1977, denied indirect purchasers the right to bring private price-fixing suits to recover overcharges. Several states, pressured by consumer groups and others, repealed the rule. However, the refusal of most state courts to certify the class action suits brought under these statutes thwarted the effort to overcome Illinois Brick. The complex nature of these suits justifies this result and the Supreme Court's original holding.
Publication Name: Antitrust Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0003-6056
Year: 1999
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: HP targets legal industry; entering the fray, HP focuses on vertical markets. Peer to peer
- Abstracts: Fiscal state aid goes global. Multinationals, enforcement covenants and fair share. Conference Report: The EU and Third Countries: Direct Taxation, 13-14 October 2006, Vienna
- Abstracts: Title VII's tangled tale: the erosion and confusion of disparate impact and the business necessity defense. The reasonable accommodation difference: the effect of applying the burden shifting frameworks developed under Title VII in disparate treatment cases to claims brought under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act
- Abstracts: Paper protection and broken promises: the Airline Deregulation Act's Employee Protection Program. Opening Coase's other black box: why workers submit to vertical integration into firms
- Abstracts: Reload stock options: impact on your shareholders, company, and executives. SEC adopts final changes to the holding period requirements of Rule 144 for resales of restricted securities