Restraint of Trade. State Antitrust Legislation. Labor Union Fixing Prices in Local and Interstate Commerce Subject to State Antitrust Law

1951 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 510
Keyword(s):  
Labor Union ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Interstate Commerce ◽  
Antitrust Legislation ◽  
Restraint Of Trade

5. The legal framework

2021 ◽  
pp. 48-54
Author(s):  
Ariel Ezrachi
Keyword(s):  
Mergers And Acquisitions ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Monopoly Power ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Restraint Of Trade ◽  
The Eu

‘The legal framework’ outlines the key competition provisions currently in the US and EU. Like in most other jurisdictions, EU and US laws include competition provisions that are used to address antitrust violations such as anti-competitive agreements or abuse of monopoly power. They also include laws dealing with proposed mergers and acquisitions. The US Antitrust Law prohibits contracts and agreements between two or more individuals or entities in restraint of trade or commerce. Meanwhile, EU competition law prohibits agreements between ‘undertakings’ that have, as their object or effect, the prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition, and affect trade between the EU member states.

The Role of the Judicial System for the Development of Competition (The Antitrust Legislation and Its Implementation)

2011 ◽  
pp. 114-124
Author(s):  
P. Kryuchkova
Keyword(s):  
Judicial System ◽  
Tacit Collusion ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
Antitrust Legislation ◽  
High Standards ◽  
The One

The article is devoted to the influence of the judicial system on the competition development in Russia. The role of the judicial system in forming acceptable standards of proof in antitrust cases, in decreasing uncertainty in the antitrust law implementation is discussed. The issue of possible increase of the role of antitrust law private enforcement is also discussed. The article argues that the influence of the judicial system on antitrust law implementation and competition is ambiguous. On the one hand, there are some positive effects from decreasing uncertainty in the law implementation, rather high standards of proof in the majority of antitrust cases, really adversary character of the judicial process. On the other hand, the judicial authorities position on some issues, for instance qualification of tacit collusion, has turned for the worse. The serious problem is lowering the standards of proof in some politically committed cases.

Comment on Kartell v. Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc.: An Antitrust Analysis of Blue Shield's Reimbursement Schemes

1986 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 465-500
Author(s):  
Abby Brown Wayne
Keyword(s):  
Cost Containment ◽  
Service Industry ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Balance Billing ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
Market Dominance ◽  
Antitrust Analysis ◽  
Competitive Forces ◽  
Restraint Of Trade ◽  
Blue Shield

AbstractIn Kartell v. Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., the First Circuit held that Blue Shield's reimbursement practice known as the “ban on balance billing” did not constitute an unlawful restraint of trade in violation of the antitrust laws. Underlying the First Circuit's decision was deference to what it viewed as efforts by Blue Shield and by the Commonwealth to promote cost containment.This Comment argues that, to the contrary, under an appropriate analysis of antitrust law, the practices employed by Blue Shield did constitute unreasonable restraints of trade on the physicians' service industry in Massachusetts, given Blue Shield's market dominance in the Commonwealth. The Comment also argues that such inhibition of the competitive functioning of this industry is unwise, and that costs should instead be contained by effectuating the antitrust laws and encouraging the development of competitive forces within this industry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document