SEO Title | Regulation of Competition
Antitrust
This links to the home page
FILTERS
  • Northern District Of Georgia Rules On Antitrust State Action Immunity
     
    06/18/2019

    On May 8, 2019, Judge William M. Ray II of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.  SmileDirectClub, LLC, v. Georgia Board of Dentistry, et al., No. 1:18-cv-02328-WMR (D.N.G. 2019).  Plaintiff alleged that the Georgia Board of Dentistry (the “Board”) and its individual members (collectively, “defendants”) conspired to exclude non-dentists from participating in the market for orthodontic aligner treatment services in Georgia.  The Court found that claims against the Board were barred by sovereign immunity, while claims against individual members of the Board were adequately pled and survived dismissal.
  • Eastern District Of Pennsylvania Court Rules In Favor Of Philadelphia Parking Authority In Taxicabs’ Suit Alleging Failure To Regulate Emerging Competitors 
     
    02/06/2018

    ​On January 29, 2018, Judge Michael M. Baylson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of the Philadelphia Parking Authority (“PPA”) and turned down the damage claims filed by Checker Cab Philadelphia, Inc. and several other medallion-holding taxicab companies (collectively “Checker”) against PPA for their alleged failure to adequately regulate alternative transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft (collectively, “TNCs”).  Checker Cab Philadelphia Inc. v. Philadelphia Parking Authority, 2:16-cv-04669 (E.D. Pa. 2018).  Judge Baylson held that TNCs and taxicab companies are not similarly situated, and that PPA should not be responsible for the taxicab companies’ alleged losses caused by increased competition in the transportation industry.  The Court summarized its holding as follows:  “A court is not suited to protect market participants from competition, or from changing consumer preferences.  The marketplace still speaks loudly, probably louder than a court can, and the resolution of competitive combatants must take place in the marketplace, rather than in a courtroom.”

    Read more