Kolasky on the Apple e-books case: Another reminder that “easy labels do not always supply ready answers”

In my view, the Second Circuit’s decision in Apple e-Books, if not reversed by the Supreme Court, threatens to undo a half century of progress in reforming antitrust doctrine. In decision after decision, from White Motors through Leegin and Actavis, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held—in cases involving both horizontal and vertical restraints—that the only test for whether an agreement can be found per se unlawful under Section 1 is whether it is “a naked [restraint] of trade with no purpose except stifling competition,” or whether it is instead “ancillary to the legitimate and competitive purposes” of a business association. DagherThe cases in which the Court has consistently applied this test read like a litany of antitrust decisions we all now study in law school: White Motors, TopcoGTE SylvaniaProfessional EngineersBMIMaricopaNCAABusiness ElectronicsARCOCalifornia Dental, Dagher, Leegin, American Needleand, most recently, Actavis. Significantly, more than two-thirds of these cases involved horizontal, not vertical restraints.

Read the full piece here.