What are you looking for?
In this amicus brief for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, ICLE and a dozen scholars of law & economics address the broad consensus disfavoring how New York and other states seek to apply the “unilateral refusal to deal” doctrine in an antitrust case against Facebook.
An ICLE amicus brief filed in U.S. District Court in California supporting a motion to dismiss a suit in which holding Visa collaterally liable would generate massive social cost.
A brief of amici curiae from the International Center for Law & Economics and other notable law & economics scholars in the 10th Circuit case of Sanofi v Mylan.
ICLE supports the appeal filed by ACA Connects et al. seeking review of the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. As detailed herein, the district court failed to consider economic and empirical realities that militate in favor of finding irreparable harm to the Appellants’ members. Moreover, the same economic and empirical realities tip the balance of equities in favor of the Appellants, and establish that the public interest is in granting a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018.
ICLE President Geoffrey A. Manne and amici, scholars of economics and antitrust, submitted this brief to address the broad consensus in the academic literature disfavoring the theory underlying plaintiff’s case—so-called “unilateral refusal to deal” doctrine.
ICLE supports the petition for certiorari filed by the National Association of Broadcasters (“NAB”), et al. seeking this Court’s review of the order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC.
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 . . .
Introduction and Summary of Argument Building and maintaining a successful brand is no small task. First you must spot a widespread need or desire that . . .
To establish antitrust standing, Pulse must show not only “injury causally linked to an illegal presence in the market” but also antitrust injury “attributable to an anti-competitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny.”