Instructor
Related Videos
Horizontal Restraints: Foundational Cases 1, Rule of Reason – Chicago Board of Trade v US and US v Trenton Potteries Co.
This is the recording for Foundational Cases on Horizontal Restraints Cases Part 1 – Chicago Board of Trade v US and US v Trenton Potteries Co.
Horizontal Restraints: Foundational Cases 2, Per Se Rule – Appalachian Coals and Socony – Vacuum Oil Co.
This is the video for Foundational Cases for Horizontal Restraints: Foundational Cases Part 2 – Appalachian Coals (Socony) and Socony – Vacuum Oil Co.
Lessons on the Per Se Rule: Catalano, Inc. v Target Sales, Inc. and Arizona v Maricopa County Medical Society
Lessons on the Per Se Rule: Catalano, Inc. v Target Sales, Inc. and Arizona v Maricopa County Medical Society
Modern Horizontal Restraints Analysis VI: 1-800-Contacts, Inc. v FTC
We discuss the FTC’s case against the 1-800 Contacts and the settlement agreements it entered into with rivals that restricted particular forms of advertising. We review the Section 1 framework and compare and cont...
Modern Horizontal Restraints Analysis II: National Society of Professional Engineers v US
Modern Horizontal Restraints Analysis: National Society of Professional Engineers v US
Modern Horizontal Restraints Analysis VII: NCAA v Alston
We discuss the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in NCAA v. Alston. We introduce the basic economics of monopsony and review the Court’s condemnation as unlawful under the rule of reason the NCAA’s rules li...
Modern Horizontal Restraints Analysis III: Polk Bros. v Forest City Enterprises, Inc.
Reviving the Ancillary Restraints Doctrine: Polk Brothers, Inc. v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc., 776 F.2d 185 (7th Cir. 1985).
Modern Horizontal Restraints Analysis V: Polygram Holding, Inc. v FTC
We examine the D.C. Circuit’s 2005 decision in Polygram Holding, Inc. v. FTC. In particular we explore the “inherently suspect” framework advanced by the FTC, and the conditions under which truncated an...
Modern Horizontal Restraints Analysis IV: Quick Look Rule of Reason and NCAA v Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma
In this class we explore the Supreme Court’s analysis and decision in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. We review Section 1 analysis, introduce the concept of quick look rule of reason, explai...
Boycotts I: Klor’s, Inc. v Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.
This video will cover Per Se Condemnation of all Group Boycotts: Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207 (1959).
Boycotts III: Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v Pacific Stationery & Printing Co.
Northwest Wholesale Stationers v. Pacific Stationery and Printing, 472 U.S. 284 (1985): Narrowing the Per Se Rule Against Group Boycotts.
Boycotts II: United States Trotting Association v Chicago Downs Association, Inc.
United States Trotting Association v. Chicago Downs Ass’n, 666 F.2d 781 (7th Cir. 1981): Flexible Application of the Per Se Rule Against Group Boycotts
Proving the Agreement: Parallelism Plus Standard
We discuss and synthesize the factors courts have used to distinguish parallel conduct from coordination in Section 1 cases.
Join Antitrust Academy today!
Subscribe now for access to our comprehensive catalog of antitrust law and economics courses. Antitrust Academy is FREE for students and government employees.
