scholarly journals A Miser’s Rule of Reason: Student Athlete Compensation and the Alston Antitrust Case

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert Hovenkamp
Keyword(s):  
Student Athlete ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Antitrust Case

Antitrust: U.S. Supreme Court Affirms FTC Jurisdiction but Vacates Scope of Analysis on CDA Policy

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-198
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Zakhary
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Trade Commission ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Antitrust Analysis ◽  
Business Financing ◽  
The U.S

In California Dental Association v. FTC, 119 S. Ct. 1604 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that a nonprofit affiliation of dentists violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (1998), which prohibits unfair competition. The Court examined two issues: (1) the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) jurisdiction over the California Dental Association (CDA); and (2) the proper scope of antitrust analysis. The Court unanimously held that CDA was subject to FTC's jurisdiction, but split 5-4 in its finding that the district court's use of abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis was inappropriate.CDA is a voluntary, nonprofit association of local dental societies. It boasts approximately 19,000 members, who constitute roughly threequarters of the dentists practicing in California. Although a nonprofit, CDA includes for-profit subsidiaries that financially benefit CDA members. CDA gives its members access to insurance and business financing, and lobbies and litigates on their behalf. Members also benefit from CDA marketing and public relations campaigns.

Modernization of Antimonopoly Policy in Russia (Economic Analysis of Proposed Changes in the Competition Law)

2005 ◽  
pp. 100-116
Author(s):  
S. Avdasheva ◽  
A. Shastitko
Keyword(s):  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Financial Markets ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Commodity Markets ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Per Se

The article is devoted to the analysis of the draft law "On Protection of Competition", which must substitute the laws "On Competition and Limitation of Monopolistic Activity on Commodity Markets" and "On Protection of Competition on the Financial Services Market". The innovations enhancing the quality of Russian competition law and new norms providing at least ambiguous effects on antimonopoly regulation are considered. The first group of positive measures includes unification of competition norms for commodity and financial markets, changes of criteria and the scale of control of economic concentrations, specification of conditions, where norms are applied "per se" and according to the "rule of reason", introduction of rules that can prevent the restriction of competition by the executive power. The interpretation of the "collective dominance" concept and certain rules devoted to antimonopoly control of state aid are in the second group of questionable steps.

The Rule of Reason under Article 82 EC after Sot Lelos Kai Sia

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tu T. Nguyen ◽  
Timo Minssen ◽  
Xavier Groussot
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Reason
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document