Antitrust News and Academic Articles
Transition Report: The State of State Antitrust Enforcement
Stephen D. Houck, October 2009
The report, drafted in advance of the October 9 “Antitrust Federalism: Enhancing the Federal-State Relationship” conference, provides an overview of the history of state antitrust enforcement, a discussion of recent antitrust efforts on behalf of states and multi-state coalitions, and recommendations to facilitate cooperation between federal and state antitrust agencies.
Toward a Competition Policy Agenda for Agriculture Markets
Philip J. Weiser, August 2009
In Weiser's overview of the history of antitrust law, he outlines the role of the Sherman Act of 1890 in establishing a standard for enforcement, focusing on agricultural concerns that garnered support for the Act. With rapidly advancing agricultural technology and an ever-evolving marketplace, the remarks detail a set of priorities for future antitrust enforcement. Weiser's remarks were used as background materials for the October 2009 “Antitrust Federalism: Enhancing the Federal-State Relationship” conference at Columbia Law School.
Antitrust Cy Pres Distributions by States' Attorneys General
Daniel Stujenske, April 2007
Discusses the pros and cons of cy pres distributions and ways to rectify unbalanced redistribution of settlement funds. Argues for a prospective set of procedures to redistribute funds properly and safeguard attorneys general from criticism.
Basic Antitrust Rules of Thumb
Kevin O'Connor, March 2007
Produced for the 2007 Consumer and Antitrust Leadership Sessions, O'Connor's piece outlines the basics of antitrust enforcement.
The Developing Role of State Indirect Purchaser Statutes: The Current and Future Status of Indirect Purchaser Remedies using Mylan Laboratories as a Benchmark
Leisl Finn, January 2006
Examines the role of attorneys general in multistate antitrust cases, traces the history of federal courts’ treatment of state indirect purchaser statutes, and focuses on the recent trend in indirect purchaser actions. Argues that the need for improvements in multistate litigation involving indirect purchasers reveals the need to consolidate actions in federal court with clear guidelines that improve efficiency.
Wal-Mart v. Rodriguez: The Recent Threat to State Antitrust Authority
Erin Murray, January 2004
Uses the case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriguez to argue that state and federal antitrust enforcement actions are not mutually exclusive and that states have authority to act contrary to the Federal Trade Commission. Discusses the expansive ability of state attorneys general to exceed narrow definitions of antitrust enforcement.
The Role of State Attorneys General in the CD Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation
Oren Haker, March 2003
Through the lens of the Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price litigation, this paper addresses the question of whether state attorneys general ought to involve themselves in cases already involving the federal government. Takes issue with state involvement in the CD price-fixing case.
The Multi-State Vitamins Indirect Purchaser Litigation, Settlement, and Implications
Miranda Berge, February 2002
Discusses the 2000 settlement between a coalition of 21 state attorneys general and an international group of six vitamin manufacturers. Argues the so-called “vitamins” case established a new model for indirect purchaser litigation, and even multi-state action generally.
Cooperation Betwen the States and the European Community in Antitrust Enforcement
Monica Lamb, December 2001
This paper identifies modes of potential cooperation in antitrust and competition law enforcement between the Attorneys General of the States and the European Community antitrust authorities, as well as potential legal barriers that might hinder such cooperation.
Conflicting Federal and State Enforcement of Federal Antitrust Law: Statutory Crisis or Celebration of Diversity?
Joshua Ratner, February 2001
An exploration of the possible conflicts between federal and state enforcers on antitrust issues. Argues that, given the potential for different motivations driving the enforcers' efforts, such conflict is unavoidable but not inconsistent with established law and precedent.