What are you looking for?
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.”
ICLE filed a brief in support of Petitioners in the D.C. Circuit case, Mozilla v. FCC, a case that challenged the FCC's authority to issue the Restoring Internet Freedom Order ("RIFO").
Summary While the three-step burden-shifting framework for evaluating antitrust cases under the rule of reason is conceptually well-accepted and understood, case law remains unclear regarding . . .
This case raises significant questions about the thoroughness with which a court must review agency decisionmaking—or the extent to which a court may instead defer to that decisionmaking—when the agency has reversed a prior policy determination in the absence of a change in applicable law.
Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45 [“Section 5”], is a consumer protection statute, not a data security rule...This fundamental point has been lost in the Commission’s approach to data security.
Petitioners base their First Amendment argument on two premises: first, that surcharges are “more effective” than discounts at altering consumer behavior; and second, that surcharges and discounts are economically equivalent except for their labels.
Although the immediate question presented in this case is whether Internet-based retransmission services are eligible for the compulsory license made available by Section 111 of the Copyright Act, this statute does not exist in a vacuum.
"The court of appeals’ decision poses a grave risk to the innovation economy. The court condemned as per se violations of the antitrust laws practices that made competition possible in a nascent market through introduction of a new business model..."