Antitrust law in the United States and in California includes laws which prohibit altogether and regulate actions which can constitute, among other things, price fixing, monopolization
Antitrust law in the United States and in California includes laws which prohibit altogether and regulate actions which can constitute, among other things, price fixing, monopolization, exclusionary practices, tying agreements, vertical restraints, group boycotts, and agreements among competitors to divide up markets geographically.
The purpose of this article is not to discuss either the laws in general or the governmental enforcement agencies which enforce the laws, but rather certain types of cases which offer opportunities to clients in California to use these laws to protect themselves against such practices by their competitors.
Private civil antitrust cases can be brought in both California state courts and in federal courts in California. Through such individual class actions, members of the general public can challenge some of the largest corporate entities whose actions might otherwise not be challenged by governmental agencies.
By taking such matters on contingency or on an hourly rate with a retainer, a client has the ability to obtain remedies and restitution for wrongs done to that individual or his or her business. When combined with class actions, the wrongs to the general public can also be addressed and larger remedies and damages can be sought.
As an example of the type of case which so far has not been addressed by governmental agencies, are the practices of owners of broadcast television networks in certain markets which, by their being allowed by the FCC to have more than one broadcast television network affiliate in a local market, are today accumulating pricing power and such a large share of both the broadcast air time and ratings as to border on what might well be considered by a jury to constitute both monopolization and price-fixing.
When compared with other local markets in which single owners do not own more than one of the broadcast television affiliates in a local market, some of these markets in which there is this multiple ownership show definite signs of pricing in excess of what is seen in other local markets of a similar size.
In such a scenario, advertisers purchasing television spots in such a local market may pay up to two or three times what such an advertiser might have to pay for the same spot on the same prime time show on the same television network in another market where one owner does not own multiple affiliates.
The reticence of advertisers to bring such antitrust actions may be in part caused by advertisers who fear that they will never be allowed to advertise on those stations again if they challenge the pricing actions of the network affiliates in court. Other advertisers who have paid too much for such advertising or been kept out of the advertising market on television by such prices, may have paid another more serious price - they may have been put out of business and may not realize that they have a case as well.
In securities-related antitrust law suit, or in other deceptive conduct antitrust cases on the other hand, most plaintiffs have no ongoing relationship with the defendant and there is not this reticence to bring such an action.
If you have a situation in which the anti-competitive practices of an entity are causing you or your business harm, or are favoring your competitors to your disadvantage, call the Law Offices of a anti trust lawyer today.
Antitrust Law Cases in California
