Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 10 Publications by John E. Lopatka
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).
Presentations & Interviews ICLE Academic Affiliate John Lopatka appeared as a guest on KCBS Radio in San Francisco to discuss the U.S. Justice Department’s antitrust case against Google. . . .
ICLE Academic Affiliate John Lopatka appeared as a guest on KCBS Radio in San Francisco to discuss the U.S. Justice Department’s antitrust case against Google. The full audio clip is embedded below.
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 The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and three overlapping groups of states have filed federal antitrust cases alleging Google has monopolized internet search, . . .
The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and three overlapping groups of states have filed federal antitrust cases alleging Google has monopolized internet search, search advertising, internet advertising technologies, and app distribution on Android phones. In this Article, we focus on the DOJ’s claims that Google has used contracts with tech firms that distribute Google’s search services in order to exclude rival search providers and thus to monopolize the markets for search and search advertising—the two sides of Google’s search platform. The primary mechanisms of exclusion, according to the DOJ, are the many contracts Google has used to secure its status as the default search engine at all major search access points. The complaint echoes the DOJ’s claims two decades ago that Microsoft illegally maintained its monopoly in personal computer operating systems by forming exclusionary contracts with distributors of web browsers, and by tying its Internet Explorer browser to Windows. The gist of the case was that Microsoft had used exclusionary tactics to thwart the competitive threat Netscape’s Navigator browser and Sun Microsystems’ Java programming technologies—both forms of “middleware”—posed to the Windows monopoly. In this Article, we argue that the treatment of market definition, exclusionary contracting, causation, and remedies in the D.C. Circuit’s Microsoft decision has important lessons for the Google litigation.
Regulatory Comments Abstract This comment by 25 law professors, economists and former United States government officials was submitted to the European Union Commission in response to a . . .
This comment by 25 law professors, economists and former United States government officials was submitted to the European Union Commission in response to a “call for evidence” on the licensing, litigation, and remedies of standard-essential patents (SEPs). It details the principal concepts and substantial evidence relating to the constructive role of SEPs in efficiently promoting innovation and structuring commercialization activities in high-tech devices generally and the mobile revolution specifically. It also addresses widespread misunderstandings and misstatements about the commercialization and litigation of SEPs. It broadly makes three points.
First, in contrast to the evidence of the positive role of SEPs in promoting innovation and commercialization in wireless technologies, no published empirical study has found evidence of the predicted marketplace effects of “holdup” or “royalty stacking” theories, such as higher prices, less innovation, and less market competition in smartphones. Second, contrary to claims by some commentators that courts do not issue injunctions for the infringement of SEPs, the comment reviews some representative decisions from the substantial case law in Europe in which SEP owners have requested or obtained injunctions against implementers engaging in holdout tactics. Third, it explains how courts have consistently held that the fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) commitment by SEP owners does not mandate a “license to all” rule nor that reasonable royalties be calculated according to the “smallest salable, patent practicing unit” (SSPPU) standard. These court decisions are consistent with the economic function and evidence of SEP licensing on FRAND terms.
The mobile revolution has created unparalleled economic and technological growth over the past three decades. So long as courts provide robust enforcement of intellectual property rights, and do not impede the licensing and other contracts predicated on those rights, there is every reason to believe that the mobile market will continue to thrive. The comment concludes with an Appendix listing the substantial, published literature addressing both the success of the SEP-based sector of the global innovation economy and the numerous substantive and methodological flaws in “holdup” and “royalty stacking” theories.
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.
Amicus Brief INTRODUCTION The district court’s decision is disconnected from the underlying economics of the case. It improperly applied antitrust doctrine to the facts, and the result . . .
The district court’s decision is disconnected from the underlying economics of the case. It improperly applied antitrust doctrine to the facts, and the result subverts the economic rationale guiding monopolization jurisprudence. The decision—if it stands—will undercut the competitive values antitrust law was designed to protect.
Antitrust law should seek to minimize error and decision costs to maximize consumer welfare and reduce the likelihood of self-defeating antitrust interventions. See Frank H. Easterbrook, The Limits of Antitrust, 63 Tex. L. Rev. 1 (1984). The Supreme Court has thoroughly incorporated the economic logic of this “error cost” framework into its antitrust jurisprudence. See Ohio v. Am. Express Co., 138 S. Ct. 2274, 2287 (2018) (“Any other analysis would lead to ‘mistaken inferences’ of the kind that could ‘chill the very conduct the antitrust laws are designed to protect.’ ”) (quoting Brooke Grp. Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 226 (1993)); see also Thomas A. Lambert & Alden F. Abbott, Recognizing the Limits of Antitrust: The Roberts Court Versus the Enforcement Agencies, 11 J. Competition L. & Econ. 791 (2015).
In contrast, this case is a prime—and potentially disastrous— example of how the unwarranted reliance on inadequate inferences of anticompetitive effect lead to judicial outcomes utterly at odds with Supreme Court precedent.
The district court’s decision confuses several interrelated theories of harm resting on the central premise that Qualcomm’s business model is purposefully structured to preserve its ability to license its standard essential patents (SEPs) to device makers (OEMs) at “unreasonably high royalty rates,” thus “impos[ing] an artificial surcharge on all sales of its rivals’ modem chips,” which “reduces rivals’ margins, and results in exclusivity.” FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-CV-00220-LHK, 2019 WL 2206013, slip op. at 183 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2019) (hereinafter slip op.).
But, without more, high royalty rates, artificial surcharges, the reduction of rivals’ margins, and even exclusivity do not violate the Sherman Act. Indeed, high prices are as likely the consequence of the lawful exercise of monopoly power or the procompetitive offering of higher quality products, and harm to competitors is a hallmark of vigorous competition. See, e.g., Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 407 (2004) (“The mere possession of monopoly power, and the concomitant charging of monopoly prices, is not only not unlawful; it is an important element of the free-market system.”). Avoiding the wrongful condemnation of such conduct is precisely the point of the Court’s error cost holdings.
The district court commits several key errors inconsistent with both Supreme Court precedent and its underlying economic framework.
First, the court failed to require proof of the anticompetitive harm allegedly caused by Qualcomm’s conduct. Instead, the court infers both its existence and its cause, see slip op. at 42–43, justifying its approach with reference to a single case: United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (“We may infer causation when exclusionary conduct is aimed at producers of nascent competitive technologies as well as when it is aimed at producers of established substitutes.”).
But the court misreads Microsoft and disregards contrary Supreme Court precedent. Indeed, both the Court and Microsoft made clear that a finding of illegal monopolization may not rest on an inference of anticompetitive harm.
In Brooke Group, the Court took the unusual step of reviewing an appellate decision for the sufficiency of evidence, prodded by the need to protect against the costs of erroneously condemning procompetitive conduct. See 509 U.S. at 230. It held that only evidence defendant’s conduct injured “competition, not competitors” supports a monopolization claim. Id. at 224 (citation omitted). And because harm to competitors doesn’t necessarily mean harm to competition, inferring anticompetitive harm from such evidence would not suffice: “mistaken inferences are especially costly, because they chill the very conduct the antitrust laws are designed to protect.” Id. at 226 (citation omitted).
In subsequent cases, the Court redoubled its commitment to minimizing error costs arising from erroneous inferences of anticompetitive effect. See Trinko, 540 U.S. at 414 (“The cost of false positives counsels against an undue expansion of § 2 liability.”) (citation omitted); Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. linkLine Commc’ns, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 451 (2009).
As law and economics scholars, we are concerned that, because the district court’s decision rests on tenuous, unsupported inferences, “[i]f the district court’s holding is not repudiated on appeal, then the obvious consequence will be for companies to be deterred from much innocent and potentially procompetitive business conduct.” Douglas H. Ginsburg, Joshua D. Wright & Lindsey M. Edwards, Section 2 Mangled: FTC v. Qualcomm on the Duty to Deal, Price Squeezes, and Exclusive Dealing 2 (George Mason Univ. Law & Econ. Research Paper Series 19-21, Aug. 19, 2019), http://bit.ly/2z7aZzA.
This concern is not just academic. See FTC v. Qualcomm, No. 19- 16122, Order at 6 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2019) (recognizing the DOJ and Departments of Energy and Defense all classified this decision as a costly false positive).
Second, the court erred in finding Qualcomm had an antitrust duty to deal with rivals. The evidence adduced could sustain the district court’s ruling through only one theory: an illegal unilateral refusal to deal.2 See Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highland Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985)). But this narrow exception—“at or near the outer boundary of § 2 liability,” Trinko, 540 U.S. at 409—is subject to strict limitations.
Finding a duty to deal requires that the company gave up a profitable course of dealing with rivals and adopted a less profitable alternative. The evidence before the district court uniformly shows that Qualcomm’s challenged practices were more profitable, and thus insufficient to support an antitrust duty to deal.
Finally, because the court didn’t perform a competitive effects analysis, it failed to demonstrate the “substantial” foreclosure of competition required to sustain a claim of anticompetitive exclusion. To avoid the costs of mistaken condemnation, the Court placed tight guardrails around finding exclusionary conduct anticompetitive, requiring foreclosure of “a substantial share of the relevant market.” See Tampa Elec. Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320, 328 (1961). Without this finding, which also may not be inferred, a claim of anticompetitive foreclosure is unsupportable.
In sum, the district court’s approach extends antitrust law beyond the clear boundaries imposed by the Supreme Court and risks deterring significant pro-competitive conduct. If upheld, amici anticipate significant harm from the district court’s decision.
TOTM People need to eat. All else equal, the more food that can be produced from an acre of land, the better off they’ll be. Of . . .
People need to eat. All else equal, the more food that can be produced from an acre of land, the better off they’ll be. Of course, people want to pay as little as possible for their food to boot. At heart, the antitrust analysis of the pending agribusiness mergers requires a simple assessment of their effects on food production and price. But making that assessment raises difficult questions about institutional competence.
Read the full piece here.
Amicus Brief "...One of the core guiding principles of modern antitrust law is the focus on maximizing the welfare of consumers. This guiding principle should lead to the conclusion that the antitrust laws may be violated when a transaction reduces consumer welfare but not when consumer welfare is increased..."
“…One of the core guiding principles of modern antitrust law is the focus on maximizing the welfare of consumers. This guiding principle should lead to the conclusion that the antitrust laws may be violated when a transaction reduces consumer welfare but not when consumer welfare is increased. The consumer welfare focus of the antitrust laws is a product of the same fundamental wisdom that underlies the Hippocratic Oath: primum non nocere, first, do no harm.
The decision of the Panel violates this principle and thus will harm consumers in the Ninth Circuit, and, insofar as it is followed in other Circuits, across the country. More specifically, the Panel takes several positions on proof of efficiencies that are contrary to the Horizontal Merger Guidelines and decisions in other Circuits. Chief among these positions are that “[i]t is not enough to show that the merger would allow St. Luke’s to better serve patients” and that “[a]t most, the district court concluded that St. Luke’s might provide better service to patients after the merger.” These positions are inconsistent with modern antitrust jurisprudence and economics, which treat improvements to consumer welfare as the very aim of competition and the antitrust laws.
If permitted to stand, the Panel’s decision will signal to market participants that the efficiencies defense is essentially unavailable in the Ninth Circuit, especially if those efficiencies go towards improving quality. Companies contemplating a merger designed to make each party more efficient will be unable to rely on an efficiencies defense and will therefore abandon transactions that promote consumer welfare lest they fall victim to the sort of reasoning employed by the panel in this case. Consequently, it is foreseeable that it will be a long time, if ever, that another panel of this Court will be able to revisit this issue that is critical to correct antitrust enforcement.
Compounding this problem is the fact that the Panel’s opinion fills something of a vacuum in efficiencies jurisprudence. Although efficiencies are recognized as an essential part of merger analysis, very little is written about them in most judicial decisions. The Panel’s decision will thus not only preempt potentially beneficial mergers but also the development of sound efficiencies analysis under Section 7.
The amici respectfully submit that the decision of the Panel is contrary to modern thinking on efficiencies in antitrust analysis and therefore urge the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case en banc in order to correct the defects in the Panel’s decision and to provide clearer guidance and analysis on the efficiencies defense.”
