Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 15 Publications by Stan J. Liebowitz
Amicus Brief INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE[1] The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) is a nonprofit, non-partisan global research and policy center aimed at building the . . .
The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) is a nonprofit, non-partisan global research and policy center aimed at building the intellectual foundations for sensible, economically grounded policy. ICLE promotes the use of law and economics methodologies to inform public policy debates and has longstanding expertise in antitrust law. ICLE has an interest in ensuring that antitrust promotes the public interest by remaining grounded in sensible legal rules informed by sound economic analysis.
Amici also include fifteen scholars of antitrust, law, and economics at leading universities and research institutions across the United States. Their names, titles, and academic affiliations are listed in Appendix A. All have longstanding expertise in antitrust law and economics.
Amici respectfully submit that this brief will aid the Court in reviewing the order of dismissal by explaining that the district court properly held, on the pleadings, that the restraint at issue is ancillary and thus that per se treatment is inappropriate. The restraint furthers Saks’s procompetitive goal of creating a strong and stable luxury brand through collaboration with the Brand Defendants. Treating such a restraint as per se unlawful, as Plaintiffs ask this Court to do, would stifle the type of legitimate cooperation that facilitates output and would ultimately harm consumers. Amici also explain why Plaintiffs and several of their amici, including the United States, make foundational errors of law and economics in arguing that ancillarity is an affirmative defense that may not be resolved on the pleadings.
Saks and the Brand Defendants are well-known luxury retail brands. As luxury retailers, their business models depend on developing and maintaining a distinct, exclusive brand to differentiate their products from the lower-priced goods sold by mass-market retailers. A primary way in which they define and protect their brands is by cultivating a premium shopping experience for customers that promotes “an atmosphere of exclusivity and opulence surrounding . . . luxury products.” Compl. ¶ 33. To that end, Saks and the Brand Defendants have for years collaborated through “store-within-a-store” arrangements: Saks allows the Brand Defendants to set up boutiques and concessions within Saks’s stores, which in turn helps all involved grow their customer base, augment their luxury brand status, and sell more products. This “store-within-a-store” model not only expands customer product choice within a single retail establishment, resulting in a better shopping experience, but also creates additional jobs at Brand Defendants’ concessions in Saks’s stores.
Plaintiffs allege that the Brand Defendants agree, as part of their respective partnerships with Saks, not to hire Saks’s own luxury retail employees without the approval of a Saks manager or until six months after the employee leaves Saks. Plaintiffs argue that these alleged no-hire provisions violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The district court disagreed, concluding that the per se rule could not apply because the no-hire provisions were “ancillary” to a broader procompetitive collaboration between Saks and each of the Brand Defendants, and that Plaintiffs failed to plead a plausible claim under the rule of reason. That decision is correct and should be affirmed.
First, the alleged no-hire agreements are ancillary to the arrangements between Saks and the Brand Defendants. Saks invests heavily in its employees. But without the no-hire provision, Saks would stand to lose those investments as the Brand Defendants could take advantage of their co-location within Saks’s stores to hire away Saks’s best workers, thereby free-riding on Saks’s training. The alleged no-hire provisions eliminate that powerful economic disincentive and thereby facilitate brand-enhancing, procompetitive store-within-a-store arrangements. That is all that is required for the agreements to be “ancillary.” Plaintiffs’ (and their amici’s) insistence on a rigid two-prong test for ancillarity is not only at odds with economic logic but also out of step with this Circuit’s precedent—and, in any event, would not change the result here.
Second, the district court properly resolved ancillarity on the pleadings. Ancillarity is a threshold inquiry decided at the earliest possible stage of a Section 1 case to determine whether the alleged facts justify departing from the default rule of reason standard. That is precisely what the district court did here: based on Plaintiffs’ own allegations—including those regarding “a continual risk that the Brand Defendants would use their concessions in Saks stores to recruit employees” (Op. 32)—the district court ruled that the alleged restraints were ancillary and thus incompatible with per se condemnation. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument, the district court did not improperly resolve any factual inferences. The court considered the Complaint in its entirety and determined that Plaintiffs did not state a plausible per se claim, just as it was supposed to do before requiring the enormous expense that would result should this kind of “potentially massive factual controversy . . . proceed.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007).
The per se rule is reserved for the most pernicious and anticompetitive restraints. Before condemning a restraint as per se unlawful, therefore, courts must “have amassed considerable experience with the type of restraint at issue” and be able to “predict with confidence that it would be invalidated in all or almost all instances.” NCAA v. Alston, 141 S. Ct. 2141, 2156 (2021). Reserving per se condemnation for that small category of restraints ensures that the antitrust laws do not inadvertently chill procompetitive conduct. Ancillary restraints do not fit the per se mold because they have a “reasonable procompetitive justification, related to the efficiency-enhancing purposes of [a] joint venture.” MLB Props., Inc. v. Salvino, Inc., 542 F.3d 290, 339 (2d Cir. 2008) (Sotomayor, J., concurring in the judgment).
Here, any purported no-hire agreements form a key plank of the broader leasing, concession, and distribution arrangements between Saks and the Brand Defendants. Op. 30-32. It is beyond dispute that these agreements are procompetitive. They not only enhance Saks’s and the Brand Defendants’ ability to vigorously compete against other retailers and luxury brands (i.e., increasing output in markets for luxury products) but also create jobs (i.e., increase output in labor markets). That places the restraint far beyond the per se rule, MLB, 542 F.3d at 339 (Sotomayor, J., concurring in the judgment); only the rule of reason can be used to determine whether the restraint “stimulat[es] competition that [is] in the consumer’s best interest” or has “anticompetitive effect[s] that are harmful to the consumer.” Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877, 886 (2007).[2]
A restraint is ancillary where it “could have a procompetitive impact related to the efficiency-enhancing purposes” of a cooperative venture. MLB, 542 F.3d at 340 (Sotomayor, J., concurring in the judgment); see Polk Bros., Inc. v. Forest City Enters., Inc., 776 F.2d 185, 188-89 (7th Cir. 1985) (restraint is ancillary if it “may contribute to the success of a cooperative venture that promises greater productivity and output”). Where a restraint is deemed “ancillary to the legitimate and competitive purposes” of a venture, the restraint is presumptively “valid” and must be assessed under the rule of reason. Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U.S. 1, 7 (2006). There is a clear procompetitive rationale for the collaboration arrangement between Saks and the Brand Defendants: the arrangement allows customers to expand their choice in one-stop shopping, and the retailers to offer a wider range of high-end luxury goods. And it creates a halo effect across the store-within-a-store through proximity and availability of multiple luxury brands. All of this in turn promotes and enhances the luxury status of Saks and the Brand Defendants alike. The alleged no-hire restraints enable and are ancillary to that larger endeavor.
As Plaintiffs allege, Defendants each derive much of their respective brand value from their ability to project a “luxury brand[] aura[],” which both entices customers and creates demand for Defendants’ goods “over other, lower-priced goods.” Compl. ¶¶ 23, 26, 28. For this reason, Defendants “go[] to great lengths to market” and otherwise “maintain[] their luxury brands’ auras.” Id. ¶¶ 23, 26. They “accomplish this feat,” in part, by ensuring that their brick-and-mortar stores provide a “luxury shopping experience[].” Id. ¶ 27. Defendants do that with sophisticated “décor and design” and premium “customer service” from skilled employees “who reflect their respective brand images and cultures.” Id. ¶¶ 27-29.
Store-within-a-store arrangements further enhance the luxury brand shopping experience for both consumers and retailers. In these arrangements, Saks allows the Brand Defendants to set up mini-stores or concessions within Saks’s large stores. These arrangements, similar to those used by “[a]lmost all department store chains,” Kinshuk Jerath & Z. John Zhang, Store Within a Store, 47 J. Mktg. Rsch. 748, 748 (2010), are mutually beneficial and procompetitive. The presence of the popular luxury brands helps draw brand-loyal customers into Saks, thus increasing foot traffic and broadening Saks’s customer reach—directly boosting sales output. Compl. ¶ 28; see Jerath & Zhang, supra, at 756-57 (“The introduction of new products through stores within a store can bring new consumers to the store who want to purchase the focal product and also purchase other products.”). The Brand Defendants benefit from access to Saks’s considerable customer base, Compl. ¶ 28, and their presence also makes possible cross-brand marketing opportunities. Consumers benefit as well: they have access to a wider array of products, and have it all at hand in a single store. And they have the benefit of workers highly trained with respect to the luxury goods they sell. Id. ¶¶ 27-29, 32-34.
But there is a significant practical impediment to allowing stores-within-stores: employee raiding. Saks invests heavily in its luxury retail employees, providing them with the “extensive training on service, selling, and product-knowledge” required to ensure that they are “knowledgeable about the particular products” for sale “as well as current trends.” Compl. ¶¶ 32, 34. Permitting the Brand Defendants to operate inside of Saks stores without restriction would put that investment in immediate danger. The Brand Defendants would have every incentive to free-ride off of Saks’s investment, observing and hiring Saks’s highly trained luxury retail employees, thereby “tak[ing] advantage of the efforts [Saks] has expended in soliciting, interviewing, and training skilled labor” and “simultaneously inflicting a cost on [Saks] by removing an employee on whom [Saks] may depend.” Id. ¶ 62. This risk—and the mistrust it can create—disincentivizes the formation and maintenance of store-within-a-store agreements.
No-hire restraints solve this problem. By imposing a narrow, time-limited, waivable restriction on the Brand Defendants’ ability to hire Saks employees, Compl. ¶ 92, the alleged no-hire agreements remove a roadblock from the “cooperation underlying the restraint,” which “has the potential to create the efficient production that consumers value,” Premier Elec. Constr. Co. v. Nat’l Elec. Contractors Ass’n, Inc., 814 F.2d 358, 370 (7th Cir. 1987). In particular, the alleged no-hire restrictions help prevent free-riding by Brand Defendants on Saks’s training. The agreement encourages Saks to invest in employee development, including by providing specific training on Brand Defendants’ products, and that investment enhances Saks’s ability to sell products from and compete against Brand Defendants’ stand-alone brick and mortar and online stores. See, e.g., Gregory J. Werden, The Ancillary Restraints Doctrine After Dagher, 8 Sedona Conf. J. 17, 21 (2007). “[W]ith the restraint,” Saks may “collaborate” with the Brand Defendants “for the benefit of its [customers] without ‘cutting [its] own throat.’” Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. AMN Healthcare, Inc., 9 F.4th 1102, 1110-11 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Polk Bros., 776 F.2d at 189). As a result, the alleged no-hire restraints are “at least potentially reasonably ancillary to joint, efficiency-creating economic activities.” Phillips v. Vandygriff, 711 F.2d 1217, 1229 (5th Cir. 1983); cf. Eichorn v. AT&T Corp., 248 F.3d 131, 146-47 (3d Cir. 2001) (“As an ancillary covenant not to compete, the no-hire agreement was reasonable in its restrictions on the plaintiffs’ ability to seek employment elsewhere.”).
The contrary conclusion—that the alleged no-hire restraints are not ancillary—risks stifling competition across the retail economy. No-hire agreements are merely one of the many ancillary contractual restraints commonly used in store-within-a-store partnerships (exemplified by, for instance, the well-known collaborations between Target and Starbucks or Best Buy and Samsung) to preserve brand integrity, guard against misuse of store space, and safeguard investments in specialized training. By solving for risks such as employee raiding or damage to property, these restrictions instill confidence in both parties, facilitating the creation of these cooperative ventures in the first place. Categorizing the alleged no-hire provisions here as per se unlawful could chill a whole spectrum of reasonable ancillary restraints, undermining the careful balance that store-within-a-store arrangements aim to maintain and inhibiting market innovation. That would be bad for potential employees, who would lose the opportunity to work at stores-within-stores, as well as for consumers, who would lose the convenient access to goods in-store concessions provide.
Plaintiffs and their amici resist ancillarity by, in part, insisting upon application of a strict and formalistic test not found in the law of this Circuit or any other. In their view, an ancillary restraint must be both (1) “subordinate and collateral to a separate legitimate transaction” and (2) “reasonably necessary to achiev[e] that transaction’s procompetitive purpose.” AOB 34-35. This rigid two-step test is not the law in this Circuit. But even if it were, Plaintiffs and amici misconstrue the second prong, improperly transforming it into a strict necessity standard that no circuit has adopted. Consistent with their evident procompetitive potential, the alleged restraints here amply satisfy the actual test.
Although some courts have moved toward a delineated two-prong standard, this Court has not. This Court’s leading opinion on ancillarity is then-Judge Sotomayor’s influential concurrence in MLB, in which she observed that a restraint is ancillary where it is “reasonably necessary to achieve any of the efficiency-enhancing benefits of a joint venture.” 542 F.3d at 338 (Sotomayor, J., concurring in the judgment). She noted no other requirements, invoking Judge Easterbrook’s similar formulation in Polk Bros. that a restraint is ancillary where it “may contribute to the success of a cooperative venture that promises greater productivity and output.” Id.; Polk Bros., 776 F.2d at 189; see Rothery Storage & Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 210, 229 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (restraint is ancillary when it “appears capable of enhancing the group’s efficiency”). That approach in turn traces all the way to then-Judge Taft’s seminal United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. decision, which assessed ancillarity using this same flexible formulation. See 85 F. 271, 281 (6th Cir. 1898).
Even if the two-prong test advanced by Plaintiffs and their amici did apply, however, they misconstrue the second prong by paying only lip service to a “reasonably necessary” standard and in reality asking this Court to impose a “strictly necessary” test. Instead of asking whether the restraint “promoted enterprise and productivity”—which is all that is required for a restraint to be “reasonably necessary,” Aya, 9 F.4th at 1110-11—Plaintiffs would require Defendants to show that the “restraint [is] necessary to achieve the business relationship,” AOB 36, such that in its absence, “Saks would terminate or . . . alter its purported collaborative relationships,” NY Br. 29.
No court of appeals has embraced this strict-necessity standard. In Medical Center at Elizabeth Place, LLC v. Atrium Health System, for instance, the Sixth Circuit considered and rejected it, holding that requiring a defendant to show that a restraint “is necessary” is “too high a standard to determine what qualifies as ‘reasonable.’” 922 F.3d 713, 725 (6th Cir. 2019); see also id. at 726 (observing Judge Sotomayor’s MLB concurrence “categorically rejected” a strict necessity test). Rather, an ancillary restraint “need not be essential, but rather only reasonably ancillary to the legitimate cooperative aspects of the venture” because “there exists a plausible procompetitive rationale for the restraint.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). The Ninth Circuit similarly rejected the United States’ attempt to advance this standard, and instead held in Aya that a no-hire restraint was “properly characterized as ancillary” where it “promoted enterprise and productivity at the time it was adopted.” 9 F.4th at 1111. And the United States and a different set of plaintiffs recently argued for a strict-necessity test in the Seventh Circuit. See Br. for the U.S. and the FTC as Amici Curiae Supporting Neither Party at 26, Deslandes v. McDonald’s USA, LLC, Nos. 22-2333 & 22-2334 (7th Cir. Nov. 9, 2022) (arguing no-hire agreement was not ancillary because it “was not necessary to encourage franchisees to sign” franchising agreements). The panel declined to adopt it, adhering instead to the Polk Bros. test. See Deslandes v. McDonald’s USA, LLC, 81 F.4th 699, 703 (7th Cir. 2023).
All of these decisions make sense. The per se rule applies only when a challenged restraint is obviously and clearly anticompetitive, and a restraint that is plausibly part of a procompetitive venture should be judged by “the facts peculiar to the business to which the restraint is applied.” Bd. of Trade of Chi. v. United States, 246 U.S. 231, 238 (1918). A contrary decision would discourage competition; strict necessity is not only an unrealistic requirement, as businesses make these decisions ex ante, but also would require them to constantly recalibrate their policies. The result would be that firms forego potentially procompetitive collaborations, chilling innovative policies and business models. See Werden, supra, at 23-24 (comprehensive analysis by DOJ economist rejecting strict-necessity test).
Nor is there any legal or logical basis for Plaintiffs’ made-up “tailor[ing]” prong—that a “restraint must be ‘tailored’ to a legitimate objective to qualify as ancillary.” AOB 35. Courts routinely reject any “reasonabl[e] tailor[ing]” requirement, because that phrase would not “carr[y] a materially different meaning than ‘reasonably necessary’” and because a restraint “need not satisfy a less-restrictive-means test.” Aya, 9 F.4th at 1111 & n.5. A tailoring analysis can be part of the rule-of-reason framework employed after a restraint is deemed ancillary, but it has no role in the ancillarity inquiry itself, which evaluates whether a restraint “should be reviewed under the rule of reason” in the first place. MLB, 542 F.3d at 341 (Sotomayor, J., concurring in the judgment). The flaw in Plaintiffs’ argument is underscored by the only case they cite to support their purported tailoring requirement, which did not even involve ancillarity, but instead analyzed whether there was a less restrictive alternative under the rule of reason. See NCAA v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U.S. 85, 117 (1984); see also Aya, 9 F.4th at 1111 (“[T]he less restrictive alternative analysis falls within the rule-of-reason analysis, not the ancillary restraint consideration.”).
Properly interpreted to require only “reasonable necessity,” the two-prong test is satisfied here on the face of the Complaint. The alleged restraint is “subordinate and collateral” to a broader venture in which Saks permits the Brand Defendants to “sell their goods and apparel” with Saks’s stores. Compl. ¶ 21. Although the United States argues that the Complaint “contains no allegations of any connection . . . between the alleged conspiracy and those business relationships,” U.S. Br. 15-16, that is not correct: the Brand Defendants operate “concessions at Saks stores,” Compl. ¶ 21, and Saks employees receive brand-specific training, id. ¶ 160. As the district court held, Op. 34 n.22, the alleged restraint prevented the Brand Defendants from hiring Saks employees who sold the Brand Defendants’ merchandise, thereby protecting Saks’s training investments, see Compl. ¶¶ 156-61, 187-91, increasing the attractiveness of the broader collaboration, and promoting mutual trust between the parties, see Rothery Storage, 792 F.2d at 224 (restraint that “serves to make the main transaction more effective in accomplishing its purpose” is “subordinate and collateral”).
Plaintiff Susan Giordano’s allegations about her own experience demonstrate that this alleged restraint is ancillary. Giordano was a Saks employee at Saks’s Loro Piana boutique for “18 months,” during which time she became “familiar[] with Loro Piana’s . . . merchandise.” Compl. ¶¶ 157, 160. Giordano sought employment at a standalone Loro Piana boutique, explaining that she “would surely be an asset” because of her familiarity with Loro Piana’s product gained from Saks’s training. Id. ¶¶ 156-61. But the no-hire restraint allegedly prevented Loro Piana from hiring Giordano, id. ¶ 161, “ensur[ing] that [Saks] [did] not lose its personnel during the collaboration” with Brand Defendants, Aya, 9 F.4th at 1110. Courts have found just these sorts of no-hire agreements to facilitate “procompetitive collaboration” to be “reasonably necessary.” Id.; cf. Bogan v. Hodgkins, 166 F.3d 509, 515 (2d Cir. 1999) (rejecting per se treatment for no-hire agreements).
The United States’ arguments to the contrary are unavailing. It argues that the alleged no-hire agreements go beyond solicitation at the concessions themselves, barring the Brand Defendants from hiring even Saks employees who independently apply or approach the Brand Defendants for a job. U.S. Br. 19. But the no-hire agreements’ purpose, to protect against risks that employees would leave for a collaborating brand located inside their own store, applies equally regardless of whether an employee is solicited by or independently approaches a competitor. In both instances, Saks invested in brand-specific employee training, see Compl. ¶¶ 32, 34, 156, that the no-hire agreement protects from the unique exposure of a store-within-a-store.
The United States also suggests that the restraint is not reasonably necessary because it applies to “any brand [or designer company] carried by Saks” rather than just brands that maintain concession stands. U.S. Br. 16, 19. But a restraint “need not satisfy a less-restrictive-means test,” Aya, 9 F.4th at 1111; regardless, Saks employees receive detailed training on all luxury brands sold in the stores, even those that do not maintain concession stands, see Compl. ¶ 34. The alleged no-hire agreement notably does not extend to the many luxury brands whose goods are not “carried by Saks,” id. ¶ 175, leaving Saks employees free to take their talents to those competing employers or to other retailers of luxury goods. And the United States’ suggestion that the duration of the agreement is too long, U.S. Br. 19, ignores that employees receive continuous training to remain “knowledgeable about the particular products [sold] . . . as well as current trends,” Compl. ¶ 34 (emphasis added). If employees could leave their employment with Saks and immediately join the competitor, then the alleged restraint would have no effect at all, and Saks would lose the incentive to invest in ongoing specialized training regarding competitor brands.
Nothing in the antitrust laws prohibits a district court from resolving ancillarity on the pleadings, and the court’s decision to do so here was procedurally proper and analytically sound. Determining whether a challenged restraint is “naked” or “ancillary” is a threshold inquiry for a Section 1 claim because “[t]his all-important classification largely determines the course of subsequent legal evaluation of [the] restraint.” Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application, ¶ 1904 (5th ed., 2023 Cum. Supp.). Put another way, resolving ancillarity at the outset of the case dictates the mode of analysis employed by the court: naked restraints are subject to per se treatment, while ancillary restraints are analyzed under the rule of reason.
This does not mean that ancillarity must be resolved at the pleadings—depending on the circumstances, it may be resolved after the pleadings but before summary judgment, at summary judgment, or even at trial. See In re HIV Antitrust Litig., 2023 WL 3088218, at *23 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2023) (summary judgment); N. Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. v. Caremark RX, Inc., 385 F. Supp. 2d 740, 743 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (pre-summary judgment Rule 16 motion). Rather, ancillarity is a threshold issue that sets the stage for the analysis that follows, and deciding it at the pleadings stage permits defendants to defeat meritless claims before undergoing costly discovery.
The district court properly resolved the question on a motion to dismiss here because Plaintiffs’ own allegations made clear that the alleged no-hire agreements were ancillary. Plaintiffs and their amici make two arguments: first, that ancillarity cannot be resolved on the pleadings, and second, that the district court improperly resolved facts in Defendants’ favor. Neither argument persuades.
Courts analyzing Section 1 claims must first determine the proper framework to apply: the per se rule or the rule of reason (or, in some cases, an abbreviated “quick look” analysis). See Leegin, 551 U.S. at 886-87. To make that determination, “[a] court must distinguish between ‘naked’ restraints, those in which the restriction on competition is unaccompanied by new production or products, and ‘ancillary’ restraints, those that are part of a larger endeavor whose success they promote.” MLB, 542 F.3d at 339 (Sotomayor, J., concurring in the judgment) (quoting Polk Bros., 776 F.2d at 188). “This all-important classification largely determines the course of subsequent legal evaluation of any restraint.” Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, ¶ 1904; see Thomas B. Nachbar, Less Restrictive Alternatives and the Ancillary Restraints Doctrine, 45 Seattle U. L. Rev. 587, 634 (2022) (“In order to do any real work, the ancillary restraints doctrine has to precede the rule of reason.”); Herbert Hovenkamp, The Rule of Reason, 70 Fla. L. Rev. 81, 140 (2018) (“The ancillary restraints doctrine is not a comprehensive method for applying the rule of reason, but rather an early stage decision about which mode of analysis should be applied.”). Thus, ancillarity is a gating inquiry. By determining at the outset of the case whether a challenged restraint is naked or ancillary, the court ensures it applies the proper analytical framework.
Because this determination guides how the parties conduct discovery and try the case, it is important to decide ancillarity at the earliest possible stage. This avoids “expensive pretrial discovery” on the wrong questions and issues. And it avoids discovery altogether in cases that do not state a claim and should never proceed past the pleadings. Limestone Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of Lemont, 520 F.3d 797, 803 (7th Cir. 2008) (noting importance of carefully evaluating antitrust claims at pleading stage “lest a defendant be forced to conduct expensive pretrial discovery in order to demonstrate the groundlessness of the plaintiff’s claim” (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558-59 (2007))).
Treating ancillarity as a gating inquiry also is consistent with the Supreme Court’s admonition that per se treatment must be confined to a narrow class of cases. As the Court has explained, “the per se rule is appropriate only after courts have had considerable experience with the type of restraint at issue and only if courts can predict with confidence that it would be invalidated” under the rule of reason. Leegin, 551 U.S. at 886-87; Dagher, 547 U.S. at 5 (“Per se liability is reserved for only those agreements that are so plainly anticompetitive that no elaborate study of the industry is needed to establish their illegality.” (quotation marks omitted)). That predictive confidence must be rooted in the “demonstrable economic effect” of the restraint at issue, not a plaintiff’s suspicion that the restraint is harmful. Leegin, 551 U.S. at 887. This is a high bar. Only when a restraint is “so obviously lacking in any redeeming pro-competitive values” may courts apply the per se rule. Cap. Imaging Assocs., P.C. v. Mohawk Valley Med. Assocs., Inc., 996 F.2d 537, 542 (2d Cir. 1993).
Because per se analysis is warranted only when justified by “demonstrable economic effect,” resolving the issue of ancillarity on the pleadings ensures that plaintiffs cannot invoke per se treatment on mere say-so. The ancillarity inquiry, by definition, considers the relationship of the challenged restraint to the parties’ business collaboration—that is, the inquiry explores the likely “economic effect” of the restraint within the context of commercial realities. That is precisely what the Supreme Court requires before expanding the per se rule into new frontiers. Broad. Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 441 U.S. 1, 19 n.33 (1979) (“[T]he per se rule is not employed until after considerable experience with the type of challenged restraint.”); Bogan, 166 F.3d at 514 (“The Supreme Court is slow to . . . extend per se analysis to restraints imposed in the context of business relationships where the economic impact of certain practices is not immediately obvious.” (quotation marks omitted)).
If ancillarity could be resolved only after the pleadings stage, as Plaintiffs and their amici urge, then a Section 1 plaintiff could survive dismissal simply by invoking the per se rule without regard for the restraint’s “economic effect” or the courts’ ability to “predict with confidence that [the restraint] would be invalidated.” Leegin, 551 U.S. at 886-87. A simple example underscores the absurdity of that rule: ever since they were recognized in Addyston Pipe as axiomatic ancillary restraints, no-hire provisions are commonly included in agreements for the sale of a business. The approach proposed would require litigation through discovery to decide if such a provision were ancillary.
Moreover, neither the federal courts nor the academy have amassed sufficient experience with this subject to allow default per se treatment. Indeed, the only study that attempted to analyze the relevant economic considerations in a systematic way concluded that eliminating no-hire provisions “causes minimal reductions in job concentration and no increase in wages.” Daniel S. Levy et al., No-Poaching Clauses, Job Concentration and Wages: A Natural Experiment Generated by a State Attorney General, Advanced Analytical Consulting Group, Inc., at 1 (Jan. 23, 2020). That inconclusive literature falls far short of justifying a rule that would effectively extend per se treatment to all no-hire agreements.
If anything, the economic incentives weigh strongly in favor of deciding ancillarity at the earliest possible stage allowed by the record. This is because a rule prohibiting courts from deciding ancillarity at the pleadings stage would be a free pass to discovery (and the “potentially enormous expense” associated with it), which would “push cost-conscious defendants to settle even anemic [Section 1] cases.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 559. That pressure, in turn, would distort normal business incentives—faced with the prospect of huge discovery costs from meritless claims, rational businesses would understandably refrain from entering into legitimate, procompetitive collaborations. Plaintiffs and their amici offer no good reason for adopting a rule that would undercut the very efficiency-enhancing purposes antitrust law is meant to advance. See Morrison v. Murray Biscuit Co., 797 F.2d 1430, 1437 (7th Cir. 1986) (“The purpose of antitrust law, at least as articulated in the modern cases, is to protect the competitive process as a means of promoting economic efficiency.”); see also MLB, 542 F.3d at 339 (Sotomayor, J., concurring in the judgment) (restraints do not receive per se treatment when they have a “reasonable procompetitive justification, related to the efficiency-enhancing purposes of [a] joint venture”).
The United States asserts that ancillarity is only a “defense” to per se illegality, rather than a threshold inquiry to determine whether a case calls for departing from the rule of reason. U.S. Br. 12-13. None of the United States’ cases, however, limit the ancillarity restraints doctrine in this way. The lone Second Circuit case the United States cites was a criminal matter where the standard applied to motions to dismiss is far more lenient and deferential to the United States than that mandated for civil cases in Twombly. In such cases, courts treat the government’s characterization of conduct as within the four corners of a recognized per se theory as sufficient for indictment purposes. See United States v. Aiyer, 33 F.4th 97, 116 (2d Cir. 2022) (indictments need only “contain[] the elements of the offense charged” and enable defendant to enter plea). Moreover, in that case, the defendant had not even challenged on appeal the district court’s conclusion that the indictment at issue adequately alleged a per se antitrust violation. See id. at 116-23. The panel never characterized ancillarity as a “defense.” See id.
The same goes for Blackburn and Board of Regents. Although the courts in those cases ultimately concluded the restraints at issue were not ancillary, neither case held that ancillarity was only a defense. Blackburn v. Sweeney, 53 F.3d 825, 828-29 (7th Cir. 1995); Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla. v. NCAA, 707 F.2d 1147, 1153-56 (10th Cir. 1983). Freeman is similarly off base. While the court there offhandedly referred to the defendant’s overall argument against the antitrust claim as a “defense,” it did so after the ancillarity discussion. Freeman v. San Diego Ass’n of Realtors, 322 F.3d 1133, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2003). The court did not use the term with specific reference to ancillarity, and in any event its use of “defense” was not meant in the same way that Plaintiffs and their amici use it—that is, as an issue that cannot be resolved at the outset of the case. AOB 39; U.S. Br. 12-13, 15. In short, none of the government’s cases hold that ancillarity is strictly a defense or is otherwise immune from resolution on the pleadings.
The Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Deslandes doesn’t advance the government’s cause either. Although the court in Deslandes summarily stated that “the classification of a restraint as ancillary is a defense,” 81 F.4th at 705, plaintiffs can plead themselves out of court, Hadid v. City of New York, 730 F. App’x 68, 71 (2d Cir. 2018), which is what Plaintiffs have done here. Nor should it be followed: the Seventh Circuit cited no case law and offered no analysis to support its bald assertion. Deslandes, 81 F.4th at 705. And, as explained, any suggestion that ancillarity can be treated only as a defense would undo the clear demarcation between the rule of reason and per se treatment. If courts can’t evaluate ancillarity at the outset, restraints that should be presumptively analyzed under the rule of reason would instead be presumptively treated as per se illegal. That result is plainly inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s antitrust precedents.
In a related argument, Plaintiffs contend that ancillarity cannot be decided on the pleadings, but instead “requires discovery.” AOB 39. But that also is wrong. “In considering a motion to dismiss, the court is not required to don blinders and to ignore commercial reality.” Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1110 (7th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Schmees v. HC1.COM, Inc., 77 F.4th 483 (7th Cir. 2023). Consistent with this principle, courts routinely resolve ancillarity on the pleadings where it is clear from the complaint that the restraint may be procompetitive. For example, in Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., the court dismissed a restraint of trade claim at the pleading stage where “the pleadings in [the] case [made] clear” that the challenged non-solicitation provision was “ancillary” to “a larger business transaction between two independent parties.” 2017 WL 6597512, at *4 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 26, 2017). Similarly, the court in Gerlinger v. Amazon.Com, Inc. determined that a purported price-fixing arrangement between Borders and Amazon was “ancillary” to the companies’ broader website hosting agreement, in part because the “context in which the agreement was entered into” confirmed its procompetitive potential. 311 F. Supp. 2d 838, 848-49 (N.D. Cal. 2004). The court reached this conclusion on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Id. Other courts have similarly decided ancillarity on the pleadings alone. See Kelsey K. v. NFL Enters. LLC, 2017 WL 3115169, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2017) (motion to amend), aff’d, 757 F. App’x 524, 526 (9th Cir. 2018); Hanger v. Berkley Grp., Inc., 2015 WL 3439255, at *5 (W.D. Va. May 28, 2015) (motion to dismiss); Caudill v. Lancaster Bingo Co., 2005 WL 2738930, at *3-6 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 4, 2005) (motion for judgment on the pleadings). Contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument, the district court’s pleading-stage ancillarity ruling was entirely proper.
Ancillarity can support dismissal when it is “apparent from the allegations in the complaint,” as even the United States acknowledges. U.S. Br. 15. Here, the district court’s ancillarity ruling was amply supported by Plaintiffs’ own allegations. Plaintiffs allege that Saks and the Brand Defendants collaborate in the sale of luxury goods by partnering to sell the Brand Defendants’ goods both directly at Saks stores and through concessions within them. Compl. ¶¶ 21, 28; see supra, at 4-10. By cooperating in this way, Saks and the Brand Defendants can leverage each other’s employees and brands to create a distinct “shopping experience for customers”—that is, the “atmosphere of exclusivity and opulence surrounding . . . luxury products,” Compl. ¶ 33, needed to promote “demand for[] luxury goods over other, lower-priced goods,” id. ¶ 23. The upshot is a procompetitive collaboration that, in the words of Polk Bros., “promises greater productivity and output.” 776 F.2d at 189.
The district court also properly relied on the Complaint to conclude that “absent the no-hire agreement, there would be a continual risk that the Brand Defendants would use their concessions in Saks stores to recruit [Saks] employees.” Op. 32 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 56-57, 83). Minimizing the risk of such “free rid[ing]” is a common, efficiency-enhancing feature of ancillary restraints. Rothery Storage, 792 F.2d at 229 (restraints were ancillary where they “preserve[d] the efficiencies of the [collaboration] by eliminating the problem of the free ride”); Polk Bros., 776 F.2d at 190 (agreement was ancillary to a joint sales venture where it limited the potential that one retailer would free ride on the sales efforts of another). That includes procompetitive restraints on employee movement. Aya, 9 F.4th at 1110 (restraint was ancillary to business collaboration where it guarded against risk of one party “proactively raiding . . . employees” of another party).
Notably, the risk of free riding wasn’t hypothetical: as the district court pointed out, the Complaint specifically alleges that Plaintiff Giordano sought to leverage the experience she acquired while working at the Loro Piana boutique as a Saks employee to seek employment with Loro Piana. Op. 34 n.22. The district court also highlighted Plaintiffs’ allegations that without the no-hire agreements, Brand Defendants such as Louis Vuitton could “take advantage” of Saks’s hiring efforts by recruiting Saks employees away from Saks after that company had already invested time and money to recruit and train its personnel. Op. 32; Compl. ¶¶ 62-63; see Compl. ¶ 53 (alleging that “a Defendant would save on training costs and receive the immediate benefit of a well-trained, motivated salesperson” by hiring “from one of its rivals”). This poaching, according to Plaintiffs, would “inflict[] a cost on [Saks] by removing an employee on whom [Saks] may depend.” Compl. ¶ 62. Thus, Plaintiffs’ own allegations demonstrate the alleged no-hire agreement is ancillary. By addressing the free-rider problem, the agreement eliminates an externality “that may otherwise distort the incentives of [the Brand Defendants] and limit the potential efficiency gains of [the collaboration].” MLB, 542 F.3d at 340 (Sotomayor, J., concurring in the judgment). Nothing more was required to resolve ancillarity on the pleadings.
Plaintiffs and their amici argue the district court erred by drawing factual inferences in favor of Saks, rather than Plaintiffs. AOB 37-40; N.Y. Br. 26-27. According to Plaintiffs, ancillarity was a “contested factual issue” that could be resolved in Saks’s favor only by improperly rejecting Plaintiffs’ allegations. AOB 37-38. Plaintiffs’ argument is misplaced.
“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Jessani v. Monini N. Am., Inc., 744 F. App’x 18, 19 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)). As part of that exercise, courts consider “a host of considerations: the full factual picture presented by the complaint, the particular cause of action and its elements, and the existence of alternative explanations so obvious that they render plaintiff’s inferences unreasonable.” Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739, 741 (2d Cir. 2013); see Boca Raton Firefighters & Police Pension Fund v. Bahash, 506 F. App’x 32, 35 (2d Cir. 2012).
That is precisely what the district court did here. It considered the “full factual picture presented by the complaint”—including the nature of the Defendants’ business relationship and the role of the no-hire agreement in the context of that relationship—to conclude that the alleged no-hire agreement was ancillary to a procompetitive collaboration. Fink, 714 F.3d at 741 (emphasis added); Op. 28-34. And in doing so, the court properly demonstrated that Plaintiffs’ own allegations precluded per se treatment. See Weisbuch v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 119 F.3d 778, 783 n.1 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Whether [a] case can be dismissed on the pleadings depends on what the pleadings say.”). Plaintiffs can’t avoid the consequences of their allegations by truncating the court’s properly holistic review of the pleadings—indeed, “[i]f the pleadings establish facts compelling a decision one way, that is as good as if depositions and other expensively obtained evidence on summary judgment establishes the identical facts.” Id.
The district court’s ancillarity ruling was sound.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should affirm.
[1] All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(4)(E), counsel for ICLE represents that no counsel for any of the parties authored any portion of this brief and that no entity, other than amici curiae or their counsel, monetarily contributed to the preparation or submission of this brief.
[2] The alleged no-hire agreements also do not fit the per se mold because they are part of a dual-distribution relation in which the Brand Defendants sell their products to end consumers through “their own standalone boutiques” as well as through distributors, “including Saks.” Compl. ¶ 21; see Beyer Farms, Inc. v. Elmhurst Dairy, Inc., 35 F. App’x 29, 29-30 (2d Cir. 2002) (holding that a restraint was “subject to scrutiny under the ‘rule of reason’” because the complaint alleged a “dual-distributorship relationship”); Elecs. Commc’ns Corp. v. Toshiba Am. Consumer Prods., Inc., 129 F.3d 240, 243 (2d Cir. 1997) (similar).
Amicus Brief STATEMENT OF AMICI INTEREST Amici are law professors, economists, or other academics with expertise in competition law and economic regulation. Amici do not work for . . .
Amici are law professors, economists, or other academics with expertise in competition law and economic regulation. Amici do not work for Tesla, nor have they been compensated in any way for their participation in this brief.[1]
Amici appear in support of Tesla on two issues with a common thread.[2] The district court’s opinion erred in insulating the actions of the Louisiana legislature and the Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission (“LMVC”) from antitrust and constitutional review under a flawed framework for scrutinizing state regulations that suppress competition and favor economic special interests.
First, Amici submit that the district court erred in holding that commissioners of the LMVC were protected by Noerr-Pennington immunity when they “agreed with [the Louisiana Automobile Dealers Association (“LADA”)] to use the regulatory power of the Commission to investigate Tesla.” Op. at 27. Although public officials may enjoy Noerr-Pennington immunity when they act in a purely private capacity, a public official who is also a market participant and agrees with others to utilize public power in a manner designed to suppress competition in order to further his own economic interests should not be immunized from antitrust scrutiny. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine protects the rights of citizens to petition the government for redress of grievance. It does not protect governmental officials who conspire to use governmental power to favor their own economic interests. The district court’s approach would create a loophole in the antitrust laws permitting actors wielding state power to avoid responsibility for abuses of official power.
Second, Amici dispute the district court’s finding that Louisiana’s direct sales ban had a rational basis in consumer protection. As Amici explain below, direct sales bans in automotive retailing were historically focused on the exclusive goal of protecting dealers in franchise relationships with manufacturers. Thus, in the cases in which this Court upheld such statutes against constitutional challenge—Ford Motor Co. v. Texas Dep’t of Transp., 264 F.3d 493 (5th Cir. 2001); Int’l Truck & Engine Corp. v. Bray, 372 F.3d 717 (5th Cir. 2004)—the ostensible rational basis of the legislation was the protection of dealers against the superior bargaining power of their franchising manufacturers. But that logic can have no bearing on the application of Louisiana’s 2017, anti-Tesla direct sales prohibition, for the simple reason that Tesla (and other new electric vehicle manufacturers) do not use franchised dealers at all, but sell directly to the consuming public. In such circumstances, dealers are not being protected as franchisees, they are protected from economic competition by companies using a different business model—exactly what this Court held does not count as a rational basis in St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille, 712 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2013). Further, efforts to justify direct sales bans as consumer protection rather than dealer protection have no support in economic theory or evidence. Such arguments are mere pretexts for the economic protectionism that this Court has held does not survive equal protection scrutiny
[1] Amici join this brief solely in their individual capacities and express only their individual views. Institutional affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.
[2] Amici take no position on other arguments raised by Tesla’s appeal.
Scholarship Abstract This paper uses an unusually rich 21st century data set to compare two sets of vintage bestsellers from the early 20th century that, by . . .
This paper uses an unusually rich 21st century data set to compare two sets of vintage bestsellers from the early 20th century that, by a circuitous path of copyright law alterations, came to have different copyright treatments. The most striking result is that, on average, copyrighted vintage bestsellers sell almost four times as many copies as public domain vintage bestsellers and this result holds throughout the sales distribution. This result conflicts with the expectation that copyright would restrict sales by allowing the exercise of monopoly power, and instead points to factors such as post-creation investment by publishers as being much more important than previously recognized. These greater sales occur despite a price premium that we find for copyrighted works, which is on average of a size similar to royalty payments typically paid to authors, although it appears to be considerably higher for better selling editions. We also find, contrary to previous claims, that vintage copyrighted titles are slightly more likely to be sold in the market than are works in the public domain. These results imply that copyright is more likely to be socially beneficial than previously thought and substituting our superior sales data into a previously published model confirms this implication. Further, these results imply that retroactive copyright extensions are socially advantageous and that indefinitely renewable copyright is more likely to be an optimal policy.
Amicus Brief IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE AND SOURCE OF AUTHORITY TO FILE BRIEF The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, . . .
The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, global research and policy center aimed at building the intellectual foundations for sensible, economically grounded policy. ICLE promotes the use of law and economics methodologies, and economic findings, to inform public policy, and has longstanding expertise in antitrust law.
Amici also include 28 scholars of antitrust, law, and economics at leading universities and research institutions across the United States. Their names, titles, and academic affiliations are listed in Appendix A. All amici have extensive expertise in antitrust law and economics, and several served in senior positions at the Federal Trade Commission or the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice.
Amici have an interest in ensuring that courts and agencies correctly apply the standards for evaluating horizontal and vertical mergers, and take into account the benefits commonly associated with vertical mergers.
Amici are authorized to file this brief by Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(2) because all parties have consented to its filing.
Amici hereby state that no party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part; that no party or party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund the preparation or submission of the brief; and that no person other than amicus or its counsel contributed money that was intended to fund the preparation or submission of the brief.
The FTC’s decision to require Illumina to divest Grail rests on at least two misguided premises. The first is that the same scrutiny applies to both horizontal and vertical mergers. The second is that benefits typically associated with vertical mergers do not apply here.
A horizontal merger combines firms that compete in the same relevant market, which necessarily reduces the number of firms engaged in head-to-head competition and may eliminate substitutes. That reduction inherently tends to increase prices, but the price effect may be trivial. In addition, market responses (competitive repositioning or new entry) or other benefits of the merger (savings in transaction and other costs, enhanced investment incentives) may neutralize or offset the impetus to higher prices. But because those benefits are not automatic (and the reduction of direct competition is), they must be proven rather than assumed if the merger otherwise poses a significant risk of anticompetitive effects.
A vertical merger, in contrast, combines firms with an upstream-downstream (e.g., seller-buyer) relationship—that is, “firms or assets at different stages of the same supply chain.” Dep’t of Justice, Antitrust Division and FTC, Vertical Merger Guidelines 1 (2020). Examples include a manufacturer’s acquiring a distributor or a firm providing a manufacturing input.
The economic consequences of combining complements rather than substitutes are fundamentally different. Whereas the first-order effect of a horizontal merger is upward pricing pressure, the first-order effect of a vertical merger is downward pricing pressure. Vertical mergers typically entail the elimination of double marginalization (“EDM”), which is akin to downward pricing pressure (and often considered alongside efficiencies). David Reiffen & Michael Vita, Comment: Is There New Thinking on Vertical Mergers? 63 Antitrust L.J. 917, 920 (1995). Vertical integration also typically internalizes externalities in research and development, resulting in greater investment. Henry Ogden Armour & David J. Teece, Vertical Integration and Technological Innovation, 62 Rev. Econ. & Stat. 470 (1980). Like horizontal mergers, vertical mergers often confer other benefits such as operational and transactional efficiencies. Dennis W. Carlton, Transaction Costs and Competition Policy, 73 Int’l J. Indus. Org. 1 (2019); Oliver Williamson, The Economic Institutions of Capitalism 86 (1985).
Thus, while both types of mergers can create benefits from cost savings, their intrinsic effects move in opposite directions: higher prices and less investment with horizontal mergers, and lower prices and more investment with vertical mergers.
The Commission did not simply presume that this vertical merger would be anticompetitive, however. It also discounted both the likelihood of efficiencies in vertical mergers and specific evidence of efficiencies associated with the already-consummated merger. As a result, the Commission did not properly assess the likely competitive effects of the merger.
Courts have long recognized that horizontal and vertical mergers are categorically different. “As horizontal agreements are generally more suspect than vertical agreements,” courts are “cautious about importing relaxed standards of proof into vertical agreement cases.” Republic Tobacco v. North Atlantic Trading Co., 381 F. 3d 717, 737 (7th Cir. 2004). Thus, for vertical mergers, “unlike horizontal mergers, the government cannot use a shortcut to establish a presumption of anticompetitive effect.…” United States v. AT&T, Inc., 916 F.3d 1029, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“AT&T II”). In a vertical merger case, “the government must make a fact-specific showing that the proposed merger is likely to be anticompetitive,” and the “ultimate burden of persuasion… remains with the government at all times.” Id. (emphasis added; cleaned up).
As the ALJ’s Initial Decision (ID) recognized (at 132), the burden-shifting approach is not bound by any specific, sequential form. Then-Judge Thomas stressed in United States v. Baker Hughes, 908 F.2d 981, 984 (D.C. Cir. 1990), that “[t]he Supreme Court has adopted a totality-of-the-circumstances approach…, weighing a variety of factors to determine the effects of particular transactions on competition.” As the ALJ aptly put it, the Baker Hughes “‘burden-shifting language’” provides “‘a flexible framework rather than an air-tight rule’”; “in practice, evidence is often considered all at once and the burdens are often analyzed together.” ID 132 (quoting Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. FTC, 534 F.3d 410, 424-24 (5th Cir. 2008)).
The differential treatment of vertical and horizontal mergers parallels the Supreme Court’s vertical restraints jurisprudence. The potential anticompetitive effects of vertical restraints are similar to those posed by vertical mergers, as both obtain between firms at different levels of the supply chain.
Over time, the Supreme Court has eliminated per se condemnation for vertical restraints. In 1977, the Court rejected per se illegality for vertical non-price restraints, Cont’l T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36, 49, 52 n.19, 58 (1977) (overruling United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U.S. 365 (1967)), later confirming that “a vertical restraint is not illegal per se unless it includes some agreement on price or price levels.” Bus. Elecs. Corp. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 485 U.S. 717, 735-36 (1988). Eventually, the Court repudiated the last vertical per se prohibition—of vertical minimum price restraints. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007) (overruling Dr. Miles Med. Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911)). In these decisions, the Court emphasized that any departure from the evidence-specific rule of reason “must be based on demonstrable economic effect, rather than . . . upon formalistic line drawing.” Bus. Elecs., 485 U.S. at 724.
These decisions reflect a nearly categorical repudiation of presumptions of illegality in dealings involving entities at different levels of the supply chain. Here, however, the Commission took the opposite approach, presuming anticompetitive effect while rejecting the significance of rigorously established benefits in a way that approaches a per se standard. This Court should reject that departure from sound law and economics.
The FTC had to show that Illumina has a greater incentive to foreclose rivals following—and because of—the merger. Instead, the Commission adopted a standard of review that elides the requirement that, in a vertical merger case where there is “no presumption of harm in play,” “the government must make a fact-specific showing that the proposed merger is likely to be anticompetitive” both at the prima facie stage and in the final analysis. United States v. AT&T Inc., 310 F. Supp. 3d 161, 192 (D.D.C. 2018) (“AT&T I”), aff’d, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019); see AT&T II, 916 F.3d at 1032.
To be sure, there is little recent case law regarding the standard of review for vertical mergers because the federal antitrust agencies have rarely challenged, let alone litigated, vertical acquisitions. The Department of Justice challenge to the AT&T/Time Warner merger marked “the first time in 40 years that a court has heard a fully-litigated challenge to a vertical merger.” Joshua D. Wright & Jan M. Rybnicek, US v. AT&T Time Warner: A Triumph of Economic Analysis, 6 J. Antitrust Enforcement 3 (2018).
Nevertheless, up to now, the agencies have considered likely structural benefits, transactional efficiencies, and potential remedies, along with potential harms, in toto and on net, in assessing a merger’s likely competitive impact. Hence, the Vertical Merger Guidelines—jointly adopted by the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice in June 2020 (although withdrawn by the FTC while this case was pending)—state that “[t]he Agencies do not challenge a merger if cognizable efficiencies are of a character and magnitude such that the merger is unlikely to be anticompetitive in any relevant market.” Vertical Merger Guidelines at 11. Even under the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, “[t]he Agency will not challenge a merger if cognizable efficiencies are of a character and magnitude such that the merger is not likely to be anticompetitive.” Dep’t of Justice, Antitrust Division & FTC, Horizontal Merger Guidelines § 10 (Aug. 19, 2010).
But here the Commission did not seriously account for likely efficiencies or other benefits that may be derived from practices inconsistent with foreclosure. Put simply, Illumina’s ability to profit from the merger without foreclosing rivals reduces its incentive to foreclose. Although the foreclosure incentive may remain on some margins, the question of the greater incentive cannot be resolved without assessing the incentives against foreclosure as well as those for it.
Illumina’s post-merger incentive to foreclose rivals may be constrained by:
But the FTC presumed away these and other factors that could mitigate the risk of harm.
The Commission maintains that the same scrutiny applies to efficiencies claims in vertical and horizontal transactions. To justify this conclusion, the Commission declined to “simply take managers’ word for efficiencies without independent verification, because then the efficiency defense ‘might well swallow the whole of Section 7,’ as managers could present large unsubstantiated efficiencies claims and courts would be hard pressed to find otherwise.” Opinion 75-76 (quoting United States v. H&R Block, Inc., 833 F. Supp. 2d 36, 91 (D.D.C. 2011). But this is a non sequitur, and wrong for three reasons.
First, the Commission need not (and the ID did not) “simply take managers’ word for efficiencies.” As the Initial Decision noted, courts and academic authorities both recognize procompetitive effects, including efficiencies, generally observed with vertical integration. ID 133-35, 196. See also ID 135 (noting case-specific evidence regarding research and development efficiencies, EDM, and the acceleration of access).
Second, to support its rejection of competitive benefits, the FTC continued to conflate the legal standards for horizontal and vertical mergers, relying only on serial string citations to horizontal merger cases. Opinion 75-76. Because a vertical merger puts direct, downward pressure on prices and upward pressure on complementary investments—the inverse of horizontal merger effects—the reliance on horizontal cases highlights the Commission’s failure to recognize the fundamental difference between horizontal and vertical integration. See AT&T II, 916 F.3d at 1032.
Third, ignoring that distinction, and the resulting need for a “fact-specific showing” of the likely anticompetitive effects of a vertical merger, id. at 1032, the Commission repeatedly relied upon H&R Block, which says nothing about standards of review for vertical mergers. H&R Block involved a horizontal merger that allegedly would have produced “an effective duopoly.” 833 F. Supp. 2d at 44.
The FTC’s Opinion also cites a horizontal merger decision, FTC v. H.J. Heinz Co., 246 F.3d 708, 713 (D.C. Cir. 2001), and AT&T II—a vertical merger case—for the proposition that the Baker Hughes framework applies to both horizontal and vertical mergers. That is misleading. Again, AT&T emphasizes that the distinction between horizontal and vertical mergers precludes similar presumptions of anticompetitive effects, and makes it easier to establish certain recognized efficiency and other benefits of vertical integration. See AT&T II, 916 F.3d at 1032; Vertical Merger Guidelines at 5. Not incidentally, the Government lost its merger challenge in AT&T, both at trial and on appeal.
The Commission also discounted—or ignored—various efficiencies and other benefits on the ground that “efficiencies are ‘inherently difficult to verify and quantify.’” Opinion 75 (citing H&R Block, 833 F. Supp. 2d at 89). To justify this approach, the Commission cites five horizontal merger matters: H&R Block; H.J. Heinz; Otto Bock HealthCare N. Am., Inc., 168 F.T.C. 324 (2019); FTC v. Wilh. Wilhelmsen Holding ASA, 341 F. Supp. 3d 27 (D.D.C. 2018); and FTC v Penn State Hershey Medical Center, 838 F.3d 327 (3d Cir. 2016).
Although some claimed efficiencies from horizontal mergers can be hard to verify, many efficiencies from vertical mergers are inherent. Specifically, if upstream and downstream margins are positive, basic economic theory predicts that the merger will mitigate double marginalization. Empirical research confirms this. See, e.g., Gregory S. Crawford, et al., The Welfare Effects of Vertical Integration in Multichannel Television Markets, 86 Econometrica 891 (2018). Similarly, when vertically related firms make complementary investments, theory predicts—and empirical research confirms—that vertical mergers will internalize investment spillovers in a way that tends to expand investment. See, e.g., Chenyu Yang, Vertical Structure and Innovation: A Study of the SoC and Smartphone Industries, 51 Rand J. Econ. 739 (2020). Meanwhile, operational and transactional efficiencies can be supported by both theoretical and empirical evidence, as well as case-specific evidence about the merging firms.
Here, the ALJ’s findings of fact detail ongoing innovation by Illumina, including improvements to its next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies ranging from the release of new reagents to software updates expected to result from the merger. ID 88-89. The Initial Decision also describes a complex process of integration between Illumina’s NGS technology and the requirements of different MCED testing programs. ID 89-91.
Given the Commission’s disregard of efficiencies, it is unclear when or how procompetitive benefits could ever offset the harm alleged to result if the consummated merger were left undisturbed—harm that the Commission did not quantify in either magnitude or likelihood.
The efficiencies and competitive benefits here seem substantially easier to verify and quantify than the magnitude or likelihood of the supposed harm that the Commission neither quantified nor estimated. The Commission did not seriously try to quantify the effects of the merger on the timing and competitive significance of entry of complex clinical products, such as MCED tests, in early stages of development. Rather, the Commission simply asserted that “likely substantial harms to current, ongoing innovation competition in nascent markets are sufficiently probable and imminent to violate Section 7” of the Clayton Act, Opinion 60-61 (cleaned up). But the Commission identified no evidence to support this assertion, or to refute the ALJ’s determinations that MCED tests in development were not poised to enter into competition with Grail’s Galleri test, ID 143-144, that most of the research on possible MCED tests was relatively preliminary, ID 144-145, and that most of the tests being investigated appeared to be far from close substitutes for Galleri. ID 145-153; see also ID 27-28, 44-61.
Instead, the Commission disputed the legal relevance of those findings, stating that its analysis “rests on harm to current, ongoing R&D efforts, rather than the precise timing or nature of any firm’s commercialization of an MCED test.” Opinion 56 n. 38. But that harm, too, is assumed rather than observed, and is neither verified nor quantified.
Thus, the Commission’s prima facie case rests both on a peremptory dismissal of competitive benefits and efficiencies and an uncritical acceptance of speculative theories of harm. Pre-merger, Illumina maintained a substantial ownership interest in Grail of no less than 12%, ID 7-11, yet the Commission did not identify any attempts by Illumina or Grail to interfere with research and development of any MCED test that might enter to compete with Galleri. The only head-to-head R&D competition noted was between Grail and one firm with a pipeline MCED test (Exact/Thrive), on two dimensions: first, various “prelaunch” activities, such as “competing for mindshare with physicians, with health systems, with payers,” ID 34; second, competition for research scientists capable of contributing to the development of MCED tests, id. But there was neither allegation nor evidence that Illumina or Grail engaged in anticompetitive conduct in these areas, and no obvious way in which Illumina could exploit whatever market power it enjoys in NGS markets to foreclose access to “mindshare” or research scientists.
Given no past, present, or ongoing harm to third-party R&D efforts, there is no basis to ignore the likelihood of entry into the MCED test product market, the likely timing of entry, or the likely competitive significance of entry by particular MCED tests that might be relatively close or poor substitutes for Galleri.
Each of those factors is directly relevant to the present risk of potential harm to future competition. They determine whatever risk ongoing R&D into MCED tests would pose to Grail, and hence affect the merged firm’s foreclosure incentives. Equally relevant is the risk to Illumina’s core income stream from NGS sales and services should it prove unreliable or capricious in fulfilling its contracts. That core business includes diverse clinical testing well beyond the potential rivals at issue, ID 92-93, with clients including “leading genomic research centers, academic institutions, government laboratories and hospitals, as well as pharmaceutical, biotechnology, commercial molecular diagnostic laboratories, and consumer genomics companies.” ID 6.
Finally, the Commission contends that “[c]ourts have never held that efficiencies alone immunized an otherwise unlawful transaction.” Opinion 75. That puts the cart before the horse, as benefits from aligning incentives between producers of complements (what the Commission terms “efficiencies”) often determine whether a transaction—especially a vertical transaction—is “unlawful” in the first place.
Most important, the courts have never held that these benefits are irrelevant generally (as the FTC would have it), or to the question whether a transaction is unlawful in the first instance. To the contrary, analysis of a vertical merger must account for the procompetitive benefits and efficiencies it is likely to achieve. See AT&T I, 310 F. Supp. at 198 (noting need “to ‘balance’ whether the Government’s asserted harms outweigh the merger’s conceded consumer benefits.”). Even in horizontal mergers, sufficiently large efficiency benefits may prevent a merger from being illegal. New York v. Deutsche Telekom AG, 439 F. Supp. 3d 179, 207 (S.D.N.Y. 2020).
Because AT&T II made clear that no presumption of illegality applies to vertical mergers, the Commission properly faces a rigorous burden to prove on case-specific evidence that the proposed merger is likely to cause substantial, actual harm to competition and consumers—not a possibility of some degree of harm to competition that in theory could harm consumers. The Commission has not carried that burden.
The Commission’s legal error went beyond its application of a misplaced presumption of illegality that is impervious to evidence of the benefits from combining complements. The Commission also failed to recognize key structural differences between horizontal and vertical mergers.
The primary source of potential anticompetitive harm from vertical integration is foreclosure. While foreclosure is not consistently defined, one passable definition is:
[A] dominant firm’s denial of proper access to an essential good it produces, with the intent of extending monopoly power from that segment of the market (the bottleneck segment) to an adjacent segment (the potentially competitive segment).
Patrick Rey & Jean Tirole, A Primer on Foreclosure, in 3 Handbook of Industrial Organization 2145, 2148 (Mark Armstrong & Robert H. Porter, eds.) (2007). Because denial of access is a crucial aspect of foreclosure, agreements (or remedies) granting access to essential goods or services can mitigate the risk of foreclosure.
Illumina’s “Open Offer” appears to grant such access, yet the Commission failed to give proper weight to its effect on the risk of anticompetitive conduct. In contrast, the ALJ examined the Open Offer in detail, see, e.g., ID 98-125, 182-189, finding that it “provides a comprehensive set of protections for Illumina’s customers for all aspects of conduct and competition.” ID 120. The Commission rejected those findings, relying in part on a mischaracterization of the Open Offer as only a proposed remedy, and in part on an overbroad repudiation of behavioral remedies.
First, the record indicates that the Open Offer is binding under New York law, at least with respect to several firms engaged in MCED research, and that it will remain so through August 2033. ID 103-04. Firms that have accepted (or will accept) the Open Offer can enforce it whether or not the merger is blocked; and they would have every incentive to do so if Illumina interfered with their R&D efforts. That is not just a proposed remedy, but a fully operative constraint. If accepted, the Open Offer will become part of the institutional framework within which Illumina operates, further reducing or eliminating the firm’s incentives and ability to raise its rivals’ costs. ID 103-04, 179. Cf. United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 415 U.S. 486, 501-02 (1974) (noting importance of existing contracts in assessing competitive landscape).
That constraint seems especially significant given how few firms might someday enter to compete with Grail’s MCED test, and the difficulty inherent in trying to forecast R&D competition so far in advance.
Second, the Commission strains credulity in disregarding the Open Offer on the grounds that behavioral remedies can be hard to monitor and tend to be disfavored. If the Open Offer were incorporated into a consent order, the FTC would have to monitor only a very few agreements. The affected parties would assist in monitoring compliance, well-funded would-be entrants would have every incentive to report any difficulty gaining access to Illumina’s sequencing technology, and the FTC could modify the order as needed. Illumina, for its part, would face both the risk of damages imposed under state law and the risk of statutory penalties, among other remedies, for violations of FTC consent orders.
Under the flexible Baker Hughes approach, the Commission should have accorded substantial weight to the Open Offer in assessing whether the Illumina-Grail transaction is truly likely to cause harm. This behavioral remedy is neither cumbersome nor ineffective. Given the Open Offer, the Commission does not appear to have established that harm to R&D competition is likely or imminent.
Economic and empirical research confirm that the Commission was wrong to conclude that vertical and horizontal mergers should be analyzed identically. Horizontal mergers, by definition, remove a competitor from a relevant market; vertical mergers do not. As the economics literature makes clear, that structural distinction is central to antitrust analysis.
The Supreme Court’s modern vertical restraints decisions underscore the importance of developments in the economic literature for assessing how to evaluate any type of integration under the antitrust laws. The Court removed per se prohibitions on vertical restraints in part because “economics literature is replete with procompetitive justifications for” them. Leegin, 551 U.S. at 889.
The economics literature is equally “replete with procompetitive justifications” for vertical integration. Vertical integration typically confers benefits, such as eliminating double marginalization, Reiffen & Vita, supra, 63 Antitrust L.J. 917; increasing R&D investment, Armour & Teece, supra, 62 Rev. Econ. & Stat. 470; and creating operational and transactional efficiencies, Carlton, supra, 73 Int’l J. Indus. Org. 1.
The logic behind EDM is simple: Vertical mergers can increase welfare, even if the upstream or downstream firm has market power. When firms “markup” their products over their marginal cost of production, that reduces output and increases the (input or distribution) costs of their (downstream or upstream) rivals. In other words, independent upstream and downstream firms can exert negative externalities on each other that ultimately push prices upwards. When firms have no incentive to consider the effect of their price (and output) determinations on downstream firms’ profits, see, e.g., Michael A. Salinger, Vertical Mergers and Market Foreclosure, 103 Q.J. Econ. 345 (1988), there is an additional markup over the downstream firm’s marginal cost of production, or “double marginalization.” Vertical mergers enable firms to coordinate their pricing behavior, eliminating this externality without the negative effects that coordination would entail in horizontal merger cases. See Reiffen & Vita, supra, 63 Antitrust L. J. at 920.
In a vertical merger, EDM is likely automatic. Id. That is “precisely opposite of the outcome that arises under the frequently used Cournot oligopoly model of horizontal competition with substitute products. Under Cournot oligopoly, joint pricing raises price; under Cournot complements [as in a vertical merger], it lowers price.” Daniel O’Brien, The Antitrust Treatment of Vertical Restraint: Beyond the Possibility Theorems, in Konkurrensverket, Swedish Competition Authority, Report: The Pros and Cons of Vertical Restraints 22, 36 (2008).[1]
To be clear, vertical mergers are not necessarily procompetitive. An integrated firm may have an incentive to exclude rivals, see Steven C. Salop & David T. Scheffman, Cost-Raising Strategies, 36 J. Indus. Econ. 19 (1985), and a vertical merger can have an anticompetitive effect if the upstream firm has market power and the ability, post-acquisition, to foreclose its competitors’ access to a key input. See Janusz A. Ordover, Garth Saloner & Steven C. Salop, Equilibrium Vertical Foreclosure, 80 Am. Econ. Rev. 127 (1990). In that regard, raising rivals’ costs can “represent[] a credible theory of economic harm” if other conditions of exclusionary conduct are met. Malcom B. Coate & Andrew N. Kleit, Exclusion, Collusion, and Confusion: The Limits of Raising Rivals’ Costs, FTC Bureau of Economics Working Paper No. 179 (1990). But this is merely a possibility, not a likely conclusion without solid empirical evidence: “The circumstances… in which [raising rivals’ costs] can occur are usually so limited that [it] almost always represents a minimal threat to competition.” Id. at 3.
The implications of vertical mergers are thus theoretically ambiguous, not typically anticompetitive. But while the Commission now seeks to equate horizontal and vertical mergers,
[a] major difficulty in relying principally on theory to guide vertical enforcement policy is that the conditions necessary for vertical restraints to harm welfare generally are the same conditions under which the practices increase consumer welfare.
James C. Cooper, et al., Vertical Antitrust Policy as a Problem of Inference, 23 Int’l. J. Indus. Org. 639, 643 (2005).
This structural ambiguity weighs against any presumption against vertical mergers, and suggests the importance of empirical research in formulating standards to evaluate vertical transactions.
Empirical evidence supports the established legal distinctions between horizontal mergers and vertical mergers (as well as other forms of vertical integration), indicating that vertical integration tends to be procompetitive or benign.
A meta-analysis of more than seventy studies of vertical transactions analyzed groups of studies for their implications for various theories or models of vertical integration, and for the effects of vertical integration. From that analysis
a fairly clear empirical picture emerges. The data appear to be telling us that efficiency considerations overwhelm anticompetitive motives in most contexts. Furthermore, even when we limit attention to natural monopolies or tight oligopolies, the evidence of anticompetitive harm is not strong.
Francine Lafontaine & Margaret Slade, Vertical Integration and Firm Boundaries: The Evidence, 45 J. Econ. Lit. 629, 677 (2007).
On the contrary, “under most circumstances, profit-maximizing vertical integration decisions are efficient, not just from the firms’ but also from the consumers’ points of view.” Id. And “[a]lthough there are isolated studies that contradict this claim, the vast majority support it….” Id. Lafontaine and Slade accordingly concluded that “faced with a vertical arrangement, the burden of evidence should be placed on competition authorities to demonstrate that that arrangement is harmful before the practice is attacked.” Id.
Another study of vertical restraints finds that, “[e]mpirically, vertical restraints appear to reduce price and/or increase output. Thus, absent a good natural experiment to evaluate a particular restraint’s effect, an optimal policy places a heavy burden on plaintiffs to show that a restraint is anticompetitive.” Cooper, et al., supra, 23 J. Indus. Org. at 639.
Subsequent research has reinforced these findings. Reviewing the more recent literature from 2009-18, John Yun concluded “the weight of the empirical evidence continues to support the proposition that vertical mergers are less likely to generate competitive concerns than horizontal ones.” John M. Yun, Vertical Mergers and Integration in Digital Markets, in The GAI Report on the Digital Economy (Joshua D. Wright & Douglas H. Ginsburg, eds., 2020) at 245.
Leading contributors to the empirical literature, reviewing both new studies and critiques of the established view of vertical mergers, maintain a consistent view. For example, testifying at a 2018 FTC hearing, Francine Lafontaine, a former Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Economics, acknowledged that some of the early empirical evidence is less than ideal, in terms of data and methods, but reinforced the overall conclusions of her earlier research “that the empirical literature reveals consistent evidence of efficiencies associated with the use of vertical restraints (when chosen by market participants) and, similarly, with vertical integration decisions.” Francine Lafontaine, Vertical Mergers (Presentation Slides), in FTC, Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century; FTC Hearing #5: Vertical Merger Analysis and the Role of the Consumer Welfare Standard in U.S. Antitrust Law, Presentation Slides 93 (Nov. 1, 2018) (“FTC Hearing #5”), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/1415284/ftc_hearings_5_georgetown_slides.pdf. See also Francine Lafontaine & Margaret E. Slade, Presumptions in Vertical Mergers: The Role of Evidence, 59 Rev. Indus. Org. 255 (2021).
In short, empirical research confirms that the law properly does not presume that vertical mergers have anticompetitive effects, but requires specific evidence of both harms and efficiencies.
Critics of prevailing legal standards and agency practice have pointed to a few studies that might cast doubt on the ubiquity of benefits associated with vertical mergers. We briefly review several of those studies, including those discussed at the FTC’s 2018 “Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century” hearings that purported to suggest that the “econometric evidence does not support a stronger procompetitive presumption [for vertical mergers].” Steven C. Salop, Revising the Vertical Merger Guidelines (Presentation Slides), in FTC Hearing #5, supra, Presentation Slides 25. In fact, these studies do not undermine the longstanding economic literature. See Geoffrey A. Manne, Kristian Stout & Eric Fruits, The Fatal Economic Flaws of the Contemporary Campaign Against Vertical Integration, 69 Kansas L. Rev. 923 (2020). “[T]he newer literature is no different than the old in finding widely procompetitive results overall, intermixed with relatively few seemingly harmful results.” Id. at 951.
One oft-cited study examined Coca-Cola and PepsiCo’s acquisitions of some of their downstream bottlers. Fernando Luco & Guillermo Marshall, The Competitive Impact of Vertical Integration by Multiproduct Firms, 110 Am. Econ. Rev. 2041 (2020). The authors presented their results as finding that “vertical integration in the US carbonated-beverage industry caused anticompetitive price increases in products for which double margins were not eliminated.” Id. at 2062. But the authors actually found that, while such acquisitions were associated with price increases for independent Dr Pepper Snapple Group products, they were associated with price decreases for both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo products bottled by vertically integrated bottlers. Because the products associated with increased prices accounted for such a small market share, “vertical integration did not have a significant effect on the price index when considering the full set of products.” Id. at 2056. Overall, the consumer impact was either an efficiency gain or no significant change. As Francine Lafontaine characterized the study, “in total, consumers were better off given who was consuming how much of what.” FTC Hearing #5, supra, Transcript 88 (statement of Francine Lafontaine), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/1415284/ftc_hearings_session_5_transcript_11-1-18.pdf.
In another study often cited by skeptics of vertical integration, Justine Hastings and Richard Gilbert examined wholesale price changes charged by a vertically integrated refiner/retailer using data from 1996-98. Justine S. Hastings & Richard J. Gilbert, Market Power, Vertical Integration, and the Wholesale Price of Gasoline, 33 J. Indus. Econ. 469 (2005). They observed that the firm charged higher wholesale prices in cities where its retail outlets competed more with independent gas stations, and concluded that their observations were consistent with the theory of raising rivals’ costs. Id. at 471.
In subsequent research, however, three FTC economists publishing in the American Economic Review examined retail gasoline prices following the 1997 acquisition of an independent gasoline retailer by a vertically integrated refiner/retailer. Their estimates suggested that the merger was associated with minuscule—and economically insignificant—price increases. Christopher T. Taylor, et al., Vertical Relationships and Competition in Retail Gasoline Markets: Empirical Evidence from Contract Changes in Southern California: Comment, 100 Am. Econ. Rev. 1269 (2010).
Hastings explains the discrepancy with Taylor et al., by noting the challenges of evaluating vertical mergers with incomplete data or, simply, different data sets, as seemingly similar data can yield very different results. Justine Hastings, Vertical Relationships and Competition in Retail Gasoline Markets: Empirical Evidence from Contract Changes in Southern California: Reply, 100 Am. Econ. Rev. 1227 (2010). But that observation does not undercut Taylor et al.’s findings. Rather, it suggests caution in drawing general conclusions from this line of research, even with regard to gasoline/refiner integration, much less to vertical integration generally.
Other commonly cited studies are no more persuasive. For example, one study examined vertical mergers between cable-programming distributors and regional sports networks using counterfactual simulations that enforced program access rules. Crawford, et al., supra, 86 Econometrica 891. While some have characterized their findings as “mixed” (FTC Hearing #5, supra, Transcript 54 (statement of Margaret Slade))—suggesting that vertical integration could have some negative as well as positive effects—their overall results indicated “that vertical integration leads to significant gains in both consumer and aggregate welfare.” Crawford, et al., supra, 86 Econometrica at 893-894.
Harvard economist Robin Lee, a co-author of the study, concluded that the findings demonstrated that the consumer benefits of efficiency gains outweighed any harms from foreclosure. As he testified at the FTC’s 2018 hearings,
our key findings are that, on average, across channels and simulations, there is a net consumer welfare gain from integration. Don’t get me wrong, there are significant foreclosure effects, and rival distributors are harmed, but these negative effects are oftentimes offset by sizeable efficiency gains. Of course, this is an average. It masks considerable heterogeneity.
FTC, Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century: FTC Hearing #3: Multi-Sided Platforms, Labor Markets, and Potential Competition, Transcript 101 (Oct. 17, 2018), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/1413712/ftc_hearings_session_3_transcript_day_3_10-17-18_0.pdf.
While these studies indicate that vertical mergers can sometimes lead to harm, that point was never disputed. What is important is that the studies do not support any general presumption against vertical mergers or, indeed, any revision to either the legal distinction between horizontal and vertical mergers or to what was, up to now, established agency practice in merger review. The weight of the empirical evidence plainly indicates that vertical integration tends to be procompetitive; hence, no presumption of anticompetitive effects or of illegality should apply, and none should have been applied here.
There is much at stake here. The potential for harm from the merger seems speculative, but the benefits seem conspicuous and substantial, not only reducing the risk of net competitive harm but promising significant enhancement to consumer welfare. As the Commission observed, “better screening methods to detect more cancers at an earlier stage … have the potential to extend and improve many human lives.” Opinion 3. Those benefits should not be forestalled by speculation about possible harms that ignores the differences between vertical and horizontal mergers.
The FTC’s decision should be reversed.
[1] Many discussions of the competitive effects of vertical mergers, including the Vertical Merger Guidelines, conflate EDM, investment benefits, and transactional efficiencies.
Scholarship Abstract Researchers have frequently used publicly available data on product ranks to estimate nonpublic sales quantities, believing that there is a linear relationship between logged . . .
Researchers have frequently used publicly available data on product ranks to estimate nonpublic sales quantities, believing that there is a linear relationship between logged rank and logged sales values due to the assumption that sales follow a power law. However, using data on book sales, which are commonly thought to follow a power law, we find that the (double logged) relationship between ranking and sales is not linear, but actually concave. We demonstrate that this concavity is likely to cause poor predictions of sales in many instances. We also explore the use of nonlinear specifications as an alternative method to predict sales from ranks and find a simple specification that ameliorates many of these poor sales estimates. We illustrate some of the problems of applying a linear technique to this nonlinear relationship by examining the claim that the greater product variety made available to shoppers on the Internet has a large positive impact on social welfare, and also a claim about sales levels in top 20 and top 50 “charts.”
Amicus Brief Interest of Amicus Curiae[1] The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) is a nonprofit, non-partisan global research and policy center aimed at building the . . .
The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) is a nonprofit, non-partisan global research and policy center aimed at building the intellectual foundations for sensible, economically grounded policy. ICLE promotes the use of law and economics methodologies to inform public policy debates and has longstanding expertise in antitrust law.
Amici also include twenty scholars of antitrust, law, and economics at leading universities and research institutions across the United States. Their names, titles, and academic affiliations are listed in Appendix A. All have longstanding expertise in antitrust law and economics.
Amici respectfully submit that their amicus brief will aid the Court in reviewing the order of dismissal by explaining that Plaintiffs did not plead and could not prove any plausible product or geographic market. This is a point that Plaintiffs attempt to elide in their appellate brief that warrants this Court’s attention. The foundation of almost every antitrust claim is a plausible market definition, yet Plaintiffs’ claims in this case are premised on a labor market—limited to one company (McDonald’s), but nationwide in scope—that has no basis in economic reality.
In addition, amici explain why Plaintiffs’ claims are subject to rule of reason scrutiny. This case involves a vertical, intrabrand restraint between McDonald’s and its franchisees, which promoted interbrand competition. It was not a naked restraint on trade, but rather an ancillary restriction that furthered McDonald’s procompetitive goal of creating a strong and stable brand. Treating such a restraint as per se unlawful, as Plaintiffs ask this Court to do, would stifle the type of legitimate cooperation that facilitates output and would ultimately harm consumers.
Until 2017, McDonald’s franchise agreements included a provision that prevented franchisees from hiring workers from other McDonald’s restaurants within the six-month period immediately following the workers’ prior employment. Two employees sued McDonald’s in a putative class action, alleging that this provision—which the parties refer to as “Paragraph 14”—was an unlawful agreement under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, that harmed competition by artificially suppressing wages. Plaintiffs argued that Paragraph 14 was per se unlawful or failed “quick look” review; on appeal (but not below), Plaintiffs also argue that Paragraph 14 fails scrutiny under the rule of reason. Brief of Appellants at 31-33, Deslandes v. McDonald’s USA LLC, No. 22-2333 & 22-2334 (7th Cir.) (“App. Br.”).
Under the rule of reason, Plaintiffs had the burden to plead and prove the relevant product and geographic markets within which McDonald’s allegedly exerted market power and caused the alleged anticompetitive effects. Plaintiffs’ claim has always been premised—explicitly or implicitly—on a single-brand and nationwide labor market for McDonald’s employees. (§ I.A). Although Plaintiffs shy away from that market on appeal, it is the only one discernible from the record and the only one on which Plaintiffs’ claims could possibly be premised. But that market is fatally flawed along the two axes that typically delineate antitrust markets: (1) geography and (2) products or services.
First, the relevant labor market is local: there is no national market for fast-food restaurant employees, as Plaintiffs suggest. Low-skilled restaurant workers sell their labor in local markets, primarily to avoid long commutes or relocation. The economic (and commonsense) reality is that a person applying for a McDonald’s job in Chicago, Illinois is not also looking for a McDonald’s job in Florida or Montana; nor are local McDonald’s restaurants recruiting employees nationwide. (§ I.B). Second, there is no McDonald’s-specific labor market for restaurant employees. McDonald’s restaurants compete vigorously with other fast-food and quick-service restaurants—and with firms outside the restaurant industry—for labor. Empirical economic evidence refutes Plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary. (§ I.C).
Further, Plaintiffs cannot avoid the rule of reason (or their burden to plead and prove a relevant market) by invoking per se scrutiny. (§ II). First, Paragraph 14 was not a horizontal restraint; it was a vertical, intrabrand restraint between McDonald’s and its franchisees. (§ II.A). Second, Paragraph 14 was not a naked restraint on trade but was instead “ancillary” to McDonald’s procompetitive endeavor of developing its brand. (§ II.B). Third, Paragraph 14 does not fall in the narrow class of restrictions—like price fixing—universally condemned as anticompetitive. Nor are there sufficient economic studies showing that restraints like Paragraph 14 have a demonstrable and negative impact on trade, such that there would be a basis to depart from the default rule of reason standard. (§ II.C).
Market definition enables courts to determine whether firms possess market power capable of restricting competition. The market provides a locus for the assessment of that market power and of whether that power has been exploited to harm competition and consumers.
Accordingly, “courts usually cannot properly apply the rule of reason without an accurate definition of the relevant market.” Ohio v. Am. Express Co., 138 S. Ct. 2274, 2285 (2018). The rule of reason requires a court to assess the “actual effect” that a defendant’s conduct has on competition. Id. at 2284 (quoting Copperweld Corp. v. Indep. Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 768 (1984)). And without knowing the relevant market, “there is no way to measure the defendant’s ability to lessen or destroy competition.” Id. at 2285 (quoting Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 177 (1965)).[2]
In the district court, Plaintiffs did not clearly define the relevant market in which Paragraph 14 allegedly harmed competition; and that failure defeats their claim under the rule of reason. See Agnew v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 683 F.3d 328, 347 (7th Cir. 2012) (affirming dismissal where “[p]laintiffs appear to have made the strategic decision to forgo identifying a specific relevant market,” and rejecting “post hoc arguments attempting to illuminate a buried market allegation”).
Plaintiffs are wrong to assert that they can rely on “direct evidence” of anticompetitive harm to avoid establishing a relevant market. App. Br. at 31. Even if they had such evidence, Plaintiffs would still have the burden to sketch out the “rough contours” of the relevant market and to show that McDonald’s commanded a substantial share of that market. See Republic Tobacco Co. v. N. Atl. Trading Co., 381 F.3d 717, 737 (7th Cir. 2004) (“[I]f a plaintiff can show the rough contours of a relevant market, and show that the defendant commands a substantial share of the market, then direct evidence of anticompetitive effects can establish the defendant’s market power[.]” (emphases added)). But Plaintiffs never inform this Court what product or geographic markets are involved here, even “roughly” speaking. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ references to their supposed “direct evidence” of anticompetitive harm, without regard to any market boundaries, App. Br. at 31-32, do not suffice.[3]
Rather than define a market, Plaintiffs fault the district court for assuming that their claim “depended upon a single, nationwide geographic market.” App. Br. at 31. But that assumption came not from the district court but from Plaintiffs themselves—as that was the only market potentially discernible in their complaints. See First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 117; Turner Compl. ¶¶ 109-13 (implying a single-brand, nationwide market). While Plaintiffs try to obscure their single-brand, nationwide market for McDonald’s labor on appeal, that is the only one that Plaintiffs rely upon in their opening brief, albeit obliquely. See App. Br. at 31 (arguing that Paragraph 14 “suppressed worker pay nationwide”); id. at 33 (arguing that McDonald’s and its franchisees were the “discrete group of buyers” that were able to “hold down wages”).
Plaintiffs’ proposed market is both implausible and economically unsound. Antitrust markets typically have two dimensions: (1) a geographic market and (2) a product or services market. See Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 324 (1962). Plaintiffs’ single-brand, nationwide market fails along both dimensions.
First, to identify a relevant geographic market, the court must make a “careful selection of the market area in which the seller operates, and to which the purchaser can practicably turn for supplies.” Republic Tobacco, 381 F.3d at 738 (citing Tampa Elec. Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320, 327 (1961)). In labor markets, the “sellers” are workers or job applicants selling their services (like Plaintiffs), and “purchasers” are employers (like McDonald’s) that compete with other firms to hire, employ, and retain the workers.
As the district court correctly found, low-wage restaurant employees sell their labor locally and McDonald’s restaurants compete only with geographically proximate employers to purchase that labor. See D.E. 372 (“Class Cert. Op.”) at 20-21. Fast-food and quick-serve restaurant employees are generally low-skilled and/or entry-level workers who “are looking for a position in the geographic area in which they already live and work, not a position requiring a long commute or a move.” Id. at 21.
While some employees might relocate for other reasons first, and then seek a restaurant job, it is not economically plausible that they would “search long distances for a low-skill job with the idea of then moving closer to the job.” Id. The costs of relocation—in economic terms, the “search” costs and “transition” costs—would far exceed any cost-adjusted increases in pay and benefits.
In practical terms, an hourly McDonald’s worker in Apopka, Florida who does not otherwise desire to move to California would not uproot her life, and leave family and friends, for a McDonald’s job in Los Angeles—even if the Los Angeles franchisee offers to raise her wages a few dollars per hour. The employee has many alternative opportunities that do not require relocation and, in any event, the higher cost of living in Los Angeles would negate the benefits of the wage increase. The total costs of relocation likely outweigh the marginal wage gain.
For similar reasons, an employee is unlikely to commute long distances—for example, from Urbana to Chicago, Illinois—to work at a McDonald’s, even if the McDonald’s in Chicago pays slightly higher wages than the one in Urbana. A marginal wage increase would not offset the time and “commuting costs”—i.e., gas and mileage. See Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application ¶ 552 (5th ed. 2022) (explaining that “commuting costs” limit a supplier’s ability to operate in a distant geographic market).
Nor is it plausible that a McDonald’s franchisee in Apopka, Florida would recruit workers nationwide. That franchisee also faces search costs in the labor market. It must advertise its job openings, hire recruiters, and interview applicants, among other things. It would not be worthwhile to incur the substantial costs of a nationwide search for employees, when those employees would likely remain at the job for a relatively short time, and when there are many local workers with similar skills who could fill the role.
To be sure, some highly skilled employees in other industries—for example, corporate executives or professional athletes—undoubtedly search for high-paying or prestigious jobs nationwide. And their potential employers recruit nationwide. For those types of job-seekers, their decisions turn on the scarcity of those jobs, the substantial personal and financial investments (“sunk costs”) they have made to be qualified for such positions (which essentially “lock” them into the nationwide market), and the high salaries or total compensation that make relocation worthwhile. Likewise, for the hiring firm, the search is justified by the small number of qualified candidates, widely distributed across the country, and by the expected benefits. For example, it would be worthwhile for a firm to search far and wide for a new CEO, knowing that there are only a few people in the country with the skills and leadership ability to lead the company out of financial troubles.
These rarefied exceptions confirm that the vast majority of labor markets are “geographically quite small.” Herbert Hovenkamp, Competition Policy for Labour Markets, U. Pa. Inst. L. & Econ. ¶ 12 (May 17, 2019). Applicants for low paying and fungible jobs have fundamentally different incentives than do corporate executives and professional athletes. The former do not have adequate incentives for a national search, given the substantial costs, plus relocation or long-distance commuting.
These intuitive points are supported by data and established economic methods. Several recent economic studies demonstrate that, “in a wide range of industries[,] geographic markets for employment are rather small,” and that this is “particularly true of low-wage employees.” Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra ¶ 550b (collecting studies). One empirical study shows that “more than 80% of [all] job applications occur where the applicant and prospective employer are within the same ‘commuting zone.’” Ioana Marinescu & Roland Rathelot, Mismatch Unemployment and the Geography of Job Search, 10(3) Am. Econ. J. Macro. 42 (2018).
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) employs a methodology that confirms the district court’s findings with respect to localized markets. When BLS collects employment and unemployment statistics, it examines the “economically integrated geographic area within which individuals can reside and find employment within a reasonable distance or can readily change employment without changing their place of residence.” BLS, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Geographic Concepts, (Mar. 20, 2020). According to BLS, metropolitan and micropolitan areas are the “major” “labor market areas” (LMAs)—not the country as a whole. Id. The balance of the nation’s LMAs comprise a larger number of smaller geographic areas. Id. BLS identifies thousands of these small LMAs for each decennial census, based on its analysis of highly localized commuting flows. Id; see also Data.Gov, Commuting Zones and Labor Market Areas, (Nov. 10, 2020).
Plaintiffs’ own expert witnesses acknowledged that a nationwide market was implausible in this case. Dr. Peter Capelli conceded that restaurant workers are employed in local geographic markets, defined by commuting distances. Class Cert. Op at 22-23 (citing Capelli Dep. at 235-36, D.E. 302-1 at 608-09) (“My testimony is that for the restaurant employees in particular, the crew employees, there may be labor markets of different geographic size and that the key issue there might not even be size, it might be commuting distance.”). And Dr. Hal Singer calculated that only 8% of McDonald’s employees commute ten or more miles to work. Id. at 23 (citing Singer Rep. ¶ 64, D.E. 271-5 at 54).
Other evidence in this case also demonstrates that market conditions vary substantially by location. McDonald’s own guidelines on worker pay account for local conditions. D.E. 302-19 at -997; D.E. 302-19 at -432, -444; see also D.E. 380 ¶¶ 40-50. The guidelines do not set forth a single, rigid nationwide formula—which one would expect to see if McDonald’s understood that its franchisees were competing for labor nationwide.
As this Court recently explained, “[t]he antitrust statutes require a ‘pragmatic’ and ‘factual’ approach to defining the geographic market,” and “[t]he market must ‘correspond to the commercial realities of the industry.’” Sharif Pharmacy, Inc. v. Prime Therapeutics, LLC, 950 F.3d 911, 917 (7th Cir. 2020) (quoting Brown Shoe, 370 U.S. at 336). Plaintiffs’ proposed nationwide market is neither pragmatic nor factual. It ignores the obvious commercial reality that local McDonald’s franchisees do not compete nationwide for low-skilled labor, and it ignores the empirical evidence that McDonald’s employees (and similarly situated low-wage employees) do not commute long distances or relocate for these types of jobs.
The outer boundaries of a product market are defined by the “reasonable interchangeability of use or the cross-elasticity of demand between the product itself and substitutes for it.” Sharif Pharmacy, 950 F.3d at 918 (quoting Brown Shoe, 370 U.S. at 325). Cross-elasticity of demand, here, reflects the degree to which a significant increase or decrease in wages paid by alternative employers changes the number of workers hired or hours worked (quantity demanded) at the employer in question. In the classic company town, the cross-elasticity of demand is zero. When there are substitutes, it is positive, indicating that “consumers would respond to a slight increase in the price of one product by switching to another product.” Todd v. Exxon Corp., 275 F.3d 191, 201-02 (2d Cir. 2001); IIA Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra ¶ 562a.
In a “buyer-side” labor monopsony, such as Plaintiffs have alleged, the market is defined not by the competing sellers (employees), but by the availability of competing buyers (employers). See Todd, 275 F.3d at 201 (citing Roger D. Blair & Jeffrey L. Harrison, Antitrust Policy and Monopsony, 76 Cornell L. Rev. 297, 297-301, 308 (1991)). Thus, the key question is whether employees would see the various employers as reasonable substitutes for one another, such that they would respond to compensation changes by seeking those substitutes. Id. If so, then any of the reasonable substitutes must fall within the market definition for the plaintiff’s market to be plausible. See Rock v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 928 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 1021 (S.D. Ind. 2013) (“Plaintiffs’ proposed market is impermissibly narrow because it ignores the existence of [substitutes].”).
In a properly defined labor market, the greater the availability of substitute employers, the less “market power” each employer can have, as employees can go elsewhere when one employer lowers its wages or fails to meet wage increases by others. When a labor market is highly concentrated, by contrast, the employer may be able to exert monopsony buying power. For example, a pure labor monopsony might exist in the classic “company town,” where there is only one large employer—such as a lumber mill or coal mine—that has wide discretion to set wages without employees leaving for other jobs. Those employees are, in effect, “locked in” to selling their labor to the single employer. Cf. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 472-73, 476 (1992) (seller can “lock in” customer to aftermarket for equipment repairs, if customers already purchased equipment in the foremarket and switching costs are high). In the modern economy, however, such examples are rare; and the market for hourly restaurant employees bears no resemblance to a company town.
Nevertheless, Plaintiffs here allege that McDonald’s is a monopsony buyer of labor—not just in a highly concentrated market, but in a single-brand market for McDonald’s labor. App. Br. at 7. In other words, McDonald’s allegedly has monopsony power to set the wages at which it hires and retains employees because employees (or applicants) generally would not see any non-McDonald’s employment opportunities as reasonable substitutes.
Plaintiffs’ theory thus depends upon implausible assumptions about McDonald’s market power and the elasticity of demand: that substantial wage increases by alternative local employers—including, but not limited to, fast food or quick-service restaurants like Wendy’s, Burger King, KFC, and Subway—would have little or no impact on the ability of a local McDonald’s franchise to hire or retain workers at a given antecedent wage. That is not only implausible in this case, but there is no evidence that it is the norm across low-wage labor markets. See, e.g., Jordan D. Matsudaira, Monopsony in the Low-Wage Labor Market? Evidence from Minimum Nurse Staffing Regulations, 96(1) Rev. Econ. & Statistics 92, 102 (2014) (empirical data in low-wage labor markets are “difficult to reconcile with the notion that low-wage labor markets such as those for fast food workers are monopsonist”).
These assumptions underlying Plaintiffs’ alleged market defy basic economic principles and common sense. Courts are highly skeptical of alleged single-brand markets with no substitutes at all, as those markets are almost always artificial and litigation-driven. See, e.g., Sheridan v. Marathon Petroleum Co., 530 F.3d 590, 595 (7th Cir. 2008) (rejecting single-brand market); Todd, 275 F.3d at 200 & n.3 (“Cases in which dismissal on the pleadings is appropriate frequently involve . . . failed attempts to limit a product market to a single brand, franchise, institution, or comparable entity….” (collecting cases)).
McDonald’s does not have monopsony power in any relevant market because, from an employee’s perspective, there are many reasonable substitutes in the geographic areas in which a given McDonald’s franchisee operates. McDonald’s franchisees compete vigorously for labor with other local employers within and without the quick-service industry. As the district court observed, there are multitudes of adequate, substitute employers for low-wage employees—including (1) other quick-serve restaurants, like Burger King, Wendy’s, Arby’s, KFC, Taco Bell, Chick-fil-A, Chipotle, and Jimmy John’s; (2) other restaurants, like Applebee’s; (3) larger retailers, like Walmart, Sam’s Club, and Costco; and (4) a host of other businesses like grocery stores and hotels. Class Cert. Op. at 21-22.
Even narrowing substitutes to just quick-service restaurants, the district court found numerous (even hundreds of) substitute employers within close geographic proximity to each of the named Plaintiffs, and the number of alternative quick-service restaurants dwarfed the number of McDonald’s franchises in the same area. Id. at 6.
Plaintiffs’ claim of monopsony buying power thus depends on the far-fetched premise that McDonald’s can suppress wages, notwithstanding hundreds of non-McDonald’s quick-service restaurants—and numerous other alternative employers—near Plaintiffs and other putative class members. In reality, if McDonald’s lowered its wages (or other employers raised theirs, and McDonald’s did not match), McDonald’s would lose its supply of labor. See Madison 92nd St. Assocs., LLC v. Courtyard Mgmt. Corp., 624 F. App’x 23, 29 (2d Cir. 2015) (in labor markets involving entry-level work, “it is beyond doubt that [employers] would have to increase their wages to retain any employees” if nearby employers “suddenly doubled the wages they paid to their employees”).
To evade this economic and commonsense reality, Plaintiffs and their expert, Dr. Singer, attempted to attribute monopsony power to McDonald’s as a structural feature of the labor economy in general. In other words, in their view, all employers of low-wage workers enjoy monopsony power in their labor markets, and, ipso facto, McDonald’s has market power in a single-brand market nationwide (or in each and every local labor market) because it employs low-wage workers.
In his expert report, for example, Dr. Singer characterizes economic literature as arguing that the ability of firms to suppress wages is “surprisingly common throughout the economy.” D.E. 271-5 (Singer Rep. ¶ 17). Thus, he stated, it “would be consistent with this literature . . . [t]hat McDonald’s-branded restaurant owners also face a low elasticity of labor supply[.]” Id.; see also id. ¶ 39 (“In light of [the economic literature], it is likely that both McDonald’s Franchisees and the McOpCos would continue to exercise some degree of monopsony power over their employees, even in the absence of the No-Hire Agreement.”).
On appeal, Plaintiffs point to Dr. Singer’s opinions about labor monopsonies, in general, as evidence that McDonald’s, specifically, had market power and could suppress wages in a proposed single-brand market for McDonald’s labor. See App. Br. at 30-33 (arguing that Plaintiffs “buttressed their direct proof of detrimental effects with substantial economic scholarship showing that low?wage employers, including those in the fast food sector, possess market power over their employees”); see also id. at 51 (arguing that “an overview of economic research demonstrat[es] that employers exercise significant monopsony power over their employees”).
Whatever the “structural” features of broader markets—comprising many low-wage employers and firms—those features say nothing about one company’s individual market power and ability to harm competition in a properly defined market. In any event, even if such a sweeping claim could suffice to carry one’s burden of proof as to a specific defendant, the claim is still inaccurate and inconsistent with the economic features of the quick-service restaurant industry. That industry is characterized by low barriers to entry for employees, extremely high turnover rates, and substantial wage growth.[4]
First, “[f]ood and beverage serving and related workers typically have no requirements for formal education or work experience to enter the occupation.” BLS, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Food and Beverage Serving and Related Workers, (Sept. 8, 2022). Unlike corporate executives and professional athletes, fast-food restaurant employees do not make large investments to obtain restaurant positions. Thus, they are not “locked in” to any one restaurant or even the restaurant industry, contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument that there are “high switching costs” for restaurant employees. App. Br. at 34.
Indeed, recent data show that the turnover in the quick-service sector is incredibly high, at around 144%—which means that if a restaurant has a total of 30 people on staff at any given time, it faced about 43 departures in the last year alone. See Daily Pay, The Turnover and Retention Rates for QSR Businesses (Nov. 15, 2022). BLS also recently found that the seasonally-adjusted “quit rate” for the accommodation and food services industry was 5.8% as of October 2022—higher than any other industry. See BLS, Economic News Release, Job Openings and Labor Turnover, Table 4, Quits levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted (Jan. 4, 2023). When restaurant workers quit, moreover, they frequently leave the restaurant industry altogether, creating high numbers of job openings for new entrants into restaurant sector employment. See BLS, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Food and Beverage Serving and Related Workers, (Sept. 8, 2022).
Moreover, fast-food workers in 2021, on average, benefitted from a 10% wage increase from 2020. See Dominick Reuter and Madison Hoff, A 10% pay increase and 8 other stats show how crazy it is to work in fast food right now, Business Insider (Aug. 24, 2021). Such rapid wage growth undermines Plaintiffs’ claim that monopsony power is a structural feature of the restaurant industry. To the contrary, this wage growth suggests that normal market factors of supply and demand are at play. Cf. Richard A. Epstein, Antitrust Overreach in Labor Markets: A Response to Eric Posner, 15 NYU J. L. & Liberty 407, 432 (2022) (“There is no global evidence, given the chronic fluctuations and frequent shortages, to believe that labor markets are rife with hidden pockets of monopsony power that function as economic black holes.”).
Finally, the most robust study of the relationship between wages and hours worked in fast-food labor markets yielded results that are consistent with competitive labor markets, rather than a monopsony model. See David Neumark and William Wascher, Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania: Comment, 90 Am. Econ. Rev. 1362, 1382 (2000) (critiquing the famous Card & Krueger minimum-wage study using direct data, rather than surveys, and looking at hours worked rather than overall employment; and finding that fast-food employers make wage and hour decisions consistent with “the prediction of the textbook [competitive] model”); see also David Neumark and William L. Wascher, Minimum Wages 106 (MIT Press 2007) (reviewing literature on low-wage restaurant workers and concluding that “the low-wage labor market can be reasonably approximated by the neoclassical competitive model”).
Overall, the empirical data show that the labor markets in which restaurants participate are dynamic and competitive, not dominated by monopsonists with the power to suppress wages at will.
Plaintiffs cannot avoid their burden to plead and prove a market by insisting on per se analysis or even “quick look” review of Paragraph 14. The rule of reason governs Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims with respect to Paragraph 14 for at least three reasons. First, the restriction was a vertical, intrabrand restraint, not a horizontal one. Second, even if it were horizontal, it was still ancillary to the procompetitive franchise agreement. Third, Paragraph 14 does not fall within that narrow class of restrictions—such as price fixing—universally and historically condemned as anticompetitive. See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Alston, 141 S. Ct. 2141, 2155-56 (2021) (explaining “spectrum” of antitrust analysis).
As noted above, McDonald’s vigorously competes with numerous firms in both labor markets and the output market. Its competitive efforts have included various intrabrand restraints among its franchisees that foster a strong, consistent brand identity, along with shared marketing and product development. That successful brand identity is what attracts individual franchisees to open and operate McDonald’s restaurants. Because Paragraph 14 was such a vertical restraint, and ancillary to McDonald’s procompetitive objectives, it cannot be per se unlawful. Rather, it is subject to full rule of reason analysis.
Paragraph 14 is a vertical, not horizontal, restraint. It was conceived and imposed by the franchisor, McDonald’s—not competing franchisees.
In 1955, McDonald’s included in its franchise agreement the predecessor to the Paragraph 14 restriction as part of an initial bundle of brand standards. That original franchise agreement also included limits on, among other things, product offerings and territorial exclusivity, as many franchise agreements do. D.E. 380-20. The terms of the agreement were consistent across franchisees, and were designed, insisted upon, and monitored by McDonald’s itself. Paragraph 14 was not created as part of an agreement among horizontal competitors, nationally or in any particular geographic labor market. Indeed, the large national (and subsequently international) network of McDonald’s franchises did not yet exist when the key elements of the franchise agreement were established.
Plaintiffs suggest the restraint was per se unlawful because corporate-owned restaurants, McOpCos, were horizontal competitors with independently owned franchisees. See App. Br. at 25, 44. In those local markets comprising both McOpCos and independently owned franchises, the district court found the restraint horizontal, but ancillary and subject to the rule of reason. Op. at 9. But the district court also identified vertical aspects to the terms that, in fact, obtain in most geographic markets. Id. at 4-5.
Paragraph 14 was necessarily a vertical restraint in the twenty states in which there were no McOpCo restaurants at all. Class Cert. Op. 17. In the remaining states, Paragraph 14 still operated as a vertical restraint in the local labor markets that had only independently owned franchisees or McOpCos, but not both. In other words, it was impossible for the restraint to operate horizontally on a national level, because the putative competition between independent franchisees and McOpCos could not have occurred in the many labor markets in which there were no McOpCos. Id. (finding that Plaintiffs have “not [ ] put forth evidence that McOpCos compete with franchisees in every part of the United States”).
Vertical restraints, like Paragraph 14, are generally evaluated under the rule of reason because they often foster interbrand competition. Thus, for decades, the Supreme Court has whittled down the types of vertical restraints that are subject to per se condemnation. In 1977, the Court refused to extend per se illegality to vertical non-price restraints, noting that vertical restrictions tend to promote interbrand competition, “the primary concern of antitrust law.” Cont’l T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36, 49, 52 n.19, 58 (1977). A decade later, the Court observed that “a rule of per se illegality for vertical nonprice restraints was not needed or effective to protect intra brand competition.” Bus. Elecs. Corp. v. Sharp Elects. Corp., 485 U.S. 717, 725 (1988). And, in 2007, the Court repudiated the prohibition of vertical price restraints that it had adopted nearly a century earlier. See Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007) (overruling Dr. Miles Med. Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911), and subjecting vertical price restraints to rule of reason analysis).
In these decisions, the Court repeatedly emphasized that any departure from the rule of reason “must be based on demonstrable economic effect, rather than . . . upon formalistic line drawing.” Bus. Elecs., 485 U.S. at 724; see also Leegin, 551 U.S. at 889 (applying rule of reason in part because “economics literature is replete with procompetitive justifications for a manufacturer’s use of resale price maintenance”).
While Plaintiffs seek a departure from the rule of reason here, economic research confirms that vertical restraints—including franchisor-franchisee restraints—tend to be procompetitive. Reviewing the empirical and theoretical literature on vertical restraints, Lafontaine and Slade observed that:
[T]he empirical evidence concerning the e?ects of vertical restraints on consumer wellbeing is surprisingly consistent. Speci?cally, it appears that when manufacturers choose to impose such restraints, not only do they make themselves better o? but they also typically allow consumers to bene?t from higher quality products and better service provision.
Francine Lafontaine & Margaret Slade, Exclusive Contracts and Vertical Restraints: Empirical Evidence and Public Policy, 10 Handbook of Antitrust Economics 391, 408-09 (Buccirossi ed., 2008); see also Francine Lafontaine & Margaret E. Slade, Transaction Cost Economics and Vertical Market Restrictions—Evidence, 55(3) The Antitrust Bulletin 587 (2010).
The rule of reason is especially appropriate here because Paragraph 14 is not only a vertical restraint, but an intrabrand one as well. And intra-franchise no-hire agreements are fundamentally different from inter-company restraints for two principal reasons.
First, intra-franchise labor restraints do not restrict output or price in the labor market because they do not affect the ability of alternative employers to compete for workers—whether those employers operate other types of quick-service restaurants or any of the myriad establishments that compete for the same pool of lower-skilled workers.
Second, even if McDonald’s did have the ability to confer labor monopsony power on local franchisees (it does not, see infra), it had no economic incentive to do so. Creating local labor monopsonies would suppress wages in those areas. That would reduce the quantity of labor employed and, in turn, suppress output in the downstream product market (i.e., food sales). See, e.g., Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Worker Welfare and Antitrust, __ U. Chi. L. Rev. 1, 10, 13 (2022) (“[T]he demand for labor as an input is closely correlated with the amount of product or service output that the firm is generating.”). But McDonald’s as a franchisor depends on product output for royalties; it has no desire to reduce its royalties by creating dysfunction in the labor market.
Because Paragraph 14 is a vertical and intrabrand restraint, it must be subject to the rule of reason.
Paragraph 14 is also subject to scrutiny under the rule of reason (rather than per se or quick look analysis) because it was “ancillary” to a procompetitive franchise agreement. In other words, there was a clear procompetitive rationale for the entire bundle of vertically imposed restraints embodied in the McDonald’s franchise agreement: brand quality and consistency. Paragraph 14 promoted that larger endeavor and was not a naked restraint on trade.
For example, Paragraph 14 limited the ability of individual franchisees to free-ride on training investments by McDonald’s and other franchisees. That in turn encouraged investment in employee development and training, and in the McDonald’s system and brand more generally. Limits on intrabrand employee raiding foster brand consistency and stability, which also are advantageous for the growth of a nationwide brand. See, e.g., Gregory J. Werden, The Ancillary Restraints Doctrine after Dagher, 8 Sedona Conf. J. 17, 21 (2007).
Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that Paragraph 14 cannot be regarded as ancillary because it was not “reasonably necessary” to the procompetitive goals of the franchise agreement, purportedly demonstrated by the fact that the cessation of the restraint in 2017 was not fatal to McDonald’s franchise system. App. Br. at 23. That argument claims too much and shows too little.
As a legal matter, ancillarity does not require a showing that restraints are strictly necessary, but only that they “may contribute to the success of a cooperative venture.” Polk Bros., Inc. v. Forest City Enters., Inc., 776 F.2d 185, 189 (7th Cir. 1985). A restraint is ancillary, in other words, if, “at the time it was adopted,” it bears a reasonable relationship to the joint venture’s success. Id. (emphasis added); see also Major League Baseball Props., Inc. v. Salvino, Inc., 542 F.3d 290, 339-40 (2d Cir. 2008) (Sotomayor, J., concurring). By pointing to the fact that McDonald’s was still able to sign franchisees after 2017, Plaintiffs implicitly argue that a restraint can be ancillary only if its removal destroys the entire endeavor. That is not the law. In other words, a company’s decision to remove one part of a bundle of its practices does not mean the part that was removed never contributed to success of the business. Moreover, to require that businesses precisely calibrate the timing of their policy changes and the substance of those changes would chill the ability of businesses to develop and test new policies and business models. Cf. Werden, supra, at 23-24 (comprehensive analysis by DOJ economist rejecting strict-necessity test).
Paragraph 14 is not one of those few restrictions—such as price fixing and boycotts—that have been universally and historically condemned as anticompetitive; we are aware of no cases holding that this restraint is per se unlawful, and Plaintiffs cite none. See App. Br. at 25 (citing only inapposite decisions and Arrington v. Burger King Worldwide, Inc., 47 F.4th 1247, 1257 (11th Cir. 2022), which held that a no-hire agreement was “concerted activity” under Section 1 of the Sherman Act but instructed the district court “in the first instance” to determine the level of scrutiny). Accordingly, there is a strong presumption that the rule of reason applies. Bus. Elecs., 485 U.S. at 726; see also Alan J. Meese, In Praise of All or Nothing Dichotomous Categories: Why Antitrust Law Should Reject the Quick Look, 104 Geo. L.J. 835, 878-79 (2016) (“Declaring all horizontal restraints inherently suspect would presumptively condemn all manner of cooperation necessary to allocate resources to their highest valued use, relegating economic actors to cooperation achieved through atomistic interaction in the spot market or complete integration.”).
Plaintiffs do not offer any reason to depart from that standard, nor is there one. As the Supreme Court has held, a departure from rule of reason must be “justified by demonstrable economic effect.” Id. Yet there is a dearth of economic studies on the effects of this type of intrabrand no-hire or no-poach agreement on the labor market. Indeed, the Ashenfelter and Krueger study, on which Plaintiffs’ expert relied, states that “systematic evidence on the impact of no-poaching agreements on workers’ pay and within-franchise job mobility is unavailable.” Ashenfelter & Krueger, supra n.4, at 21. Moreover, to evaluate the impact of no-poach agreements on pay and mobility, one would have to control for a number of important variables—e.g., inter-firm variation in the terms of no-poach agreements, inter-firm variation in the bundling of employment restrictions, and interstate variation in the enforceability of employment restrictions. The only study we are aware of that attempts to do so concludes that elimination of no-poach clauses “causes minimal reductions in job concentration and no increase in wages.” Daniel S. Levy, et al., No-Poaching Clauses, Job Concentration and Wages: A Natural Experiment Generated by a State Attorney General, Advanced Analytical Consulting Group, Inc., at 1 (Jan. 23, 2020).
While the Court has said that a departure from the rule of reason should not be based on “formalistic line drawing,” that is precisely what Plaintiffs (and amici Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Dept. of Justice) propose. For example, Plaintiffs argue that per se treatment is appropriate because (1) in a small number of geographic markets, there are both McOpCos and independently owned franchisees,[5] and (2) interbrand no-poach agreements have been found by some courts analogous to market allocation agreements. App. Br. at 25, 44. But two analogies do not an equivalence make. Even in the limited and atypical markets comprising both McOpCos and independently owned McDonald’s franchises, there is still no evidence of monopsony power over the labor market. As the district court noted regarding Plaintiff Deslandes, alternative employers outnumbered McDonald’s franchises by more than a factor of twenty.
Judicial inexperience and limited economic literature, as well as the facts on the ground, all suggest that this was precisely the type of business practice for which more elaborate economic study is needed before subjecting it to per se condemnation.
Dirk Auer is the Director of Competition Policy at the International Center for Law & Economics and Adjunct Professor at the University of Liege in Belgium.
Jonathan M. Barnett is the Torrey H. Webb Professor of Law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law.
James C. Cooper is a Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law.
Richard A. Epstein is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University School of Law.
Luke M. Froeb is the William C. Oehmig Chair in Free Enterprise and Entrepreneurship at Vanderbilt University Owen School of Management.
Harold Furchtgott-Roth is a former commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
Daniel J. Gilman is a Senior Scholar at the International Center of Law & Economics.
Janice Hauge is a Professor of Economics at the University of North Texas Department of Economics.
Justin (Gus) Hurwitz is a Professor of Law at the University of Nebraska College of Law.
Stan J. Liebowitz is the Ashbel Smith Professor of Economics at the University of Texas at Dallas.
Abbott (Tad) Lipsky, Jr. is an Adjunct Professor at George Mason University School of Law.
Daniel A. Lyons is a Professor & Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at Boston College Law School.
Geoffrey A. Manne is President and Founder of the International Center for Law & Economics and a Distinguished Fellow at the Northwestern University Center on Law, Business & Economics.
Scott E. Masten is a Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business.
Alan Meese is the Ball Professor of Law and Dean’s Faculty Fellow at William & Mary Law School.
Paul H. Rubin is the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Economic Emeritus at the Emory University Department of Economics and Law School.
Vernon L. Smith is the George L. Argyros Endowed Chair in Finance and Economics at the Chapman University Argyros School of Business of Economics. Professor Smith was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2022.
Michael E. Sykuta is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri.
Gregory J. Werden is a retired economist at the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
John M. Yun is an Associate Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law.
[1] All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(4)(E), counsel for ICLE represents that no counsel for any of the parties authored any portion of this brief and that no entity, other than amicus curiae or its counsel, monetarily contributed to the preparation or submission of this brief.
[2] See Gregory J. Werden, Why (Ever) Define Markets? An Answer to Professor Kaplow, 78 Antitrust L.J. 729, 741 (2013) (“Alleging the relevant market in an antitrust case . . . identifies the competitive process alleged to be harmed.”); Jonathan B. Baker, Market Definition: An Analytical Overview, 74 Antitrust L.J. 129, 129 (2007) (“Market definition is often the most critical step in evaluating market power and determining whether business conduct has or likely will have anticompetitive effects.”).
[3] Cf. Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. FTC, 221 F.3d 928, 937 (7th Cir. 2000) (“direct evidence” suffices where the parties agreed on a nationwide market, and the defendant held “20% of the national wholesale market and up to 49% of some local wholesale markets”).
[4] Dr. Singer misconstrues a key study in the limited economic literature regarding franchise hiring terms. That study—Orley Ashenfelter & Alan B. Krueger, Theory and Evidence on Employer Collusion in the Franchise Sector, IZA Discussion Paper, No. 11672 (July 2018) (cited at Singer Rep. ¶¶ 20, 23)—did not employ a causal design, and it did not establish—nor even purport to establish—that employers generally have or exercise antitrust-relevant market power, as Dr. Singer suggests. Singer Rep. ¶ 23. The study also found widespread use of no-poach terms among many brands that did not enjoy significant market, indicating that market power is not a prerequisite for a franchise to impose no-poach agreements.
[5] FTC and DOJ argue that assessing the horizontality of “employee-allocation agreements in the franchise context . . . requires a fact-bound evaluation of whether the agreement limits rivalry between actual or potential competitors.” DOJ & FTC Br. at 26-27 n.8. But, as noted above, there is undisputed evidence that in several states and local markets there was no competition between independently owned franchisees and McOpCos. Class Cert. Op. 17.
Written Testimonies & Filings As former judges and government officials, legal academics and economists who are experts in antitrust and intellectual property law, we write to express our support . . .
As former judges and government officials, legal academics and economists who are experts in antitrust and intellectual property law, we write to express our support for the Avanci business review letter issued by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice on July 28, 2020 (the “2020 business review letter”). The 2020 business review letter represented a legally sound and evidence-based approach in applying antitrust law to innovative commercial institutions like the Avanci patent pool that facilitate the efficient commercialization of new standardized technologies in the fast-growing mobile telecommunications sector to the benefit of innovators, implementers, and consumers alike.
Read the full letter here.
Regulatory Comments Comments of Scholars of Law, Economics, and Business Draft USPTO, NIST, & DOJ Policy Statement on Licensing Negotiations and Remedies for Standard-Essential Patents Subject to . . .
We are scholars of law, economics, and business who work in areas related to intellectual property, antitrust, strategy, and innovation. We write to express our concerns with the December 6, 2021, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (DOJ) draft statement on remedies for the infringement of standard-essential patents (SEPs) (“Draft Policy Statement”).[1] This statement would effectively repudiate guidance published by these same agencies in 2019.[2]
While the Draft Policy Statement may seem even-handed at first sight, its implementation would have far-reaching consequences that would significantly tilt the balance of power in SEP-reliant industries, in favor of implementers and to the detriment of inventors. In turn, this imbalance is liable to harm consumers through reduced innovation, resulting from higher contract-enforcement costs and lower returns to groundbreaking innovations. And by making it harder for U.S. tech firms to enforce their intellectual property (IP) rights against foreign companies, the Draft Policy Statement threatens to erode America’s tech-sector leadership.
Read the full comments here.
[1] U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Draft Policy Statement on Licensing Negotiations and Remedies for Standard-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments (Dec. 6, 2021), available at https://www.justice.gov/atr/page/file/1453471/download [hereinafter “Draft Policy Statement”].
[2] U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Policy Statement on Licensing Remedies for Standard-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments (Dec. 19, 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/SEP%20policy%20statement%20signed.pdf.
Regulatory Comments Abstract This comment by 27 law professors, economists and former government officials was submitted to the Department of Justice in response to a call for . . .
This comment by 27 law professors, economists and former government officials was submitted to the Department of Justice in response to a call for comments on a draft policy statement on standard essential patents (SEPs). Although the draft policy statement is right to seek a “balanced, fact-based analysis [that] will facilitate and help to preserve competition and incentives for innovation and continued participation in voluntary, consensus-based standard-setting activity,” the comment identifies how its proposals fail to accomplish this goal. First, the draft policy statement fails to account for the extensive scholarly research and rigorous empirical studies identifying numerous substantive and methodological flaws in the “patent holdup” theory, including its failed predictions of high prices, less innovation, and less market competition; instead, a growing mobile communications marketplace has existed for several decades. Second, the draft policy statement micro-manages the negotiation and litigation process for SEPs, which would make injunctions and exclusion orders at the International Trade Commission a de facto nullity for SEPs. This special rule effectively prohibiting injunctions contradicts repeated court decisions in both the U.S. and Europe concerning the general availability of all patent remedies for SEPs. Ultimately, the draft policy statement incentivizes strategic holdout by implementers and de facto prohibits injunctive relief for ongoing infringement of an SEP by an unwilling licensee. This would harm U.S. innovators facing increasing economic and strategic competition from China. It also threatens U.S. economic leadership and its national security, which contradicts the expressly stated goal of President Joseph Biden’s Executive Order, the progenitor of this draft policy statement, of “preserving America’s role as the world’s leading economy.” Thus, the 27 legal academics, economists, and former government officials urge the agencies to reconsider its draft policy statement on SEPs. The comment includes an Appendix of the literature on the licensing and enforcement of SEPs.
